JULY 2 (ish), 2009
***
BIGD: "You act as if one Kennedy does not speak for the rest.>>
DAR
Why would anyone assume that? That would be guilt (if you could show guilt) by association. A fallacy.
BIGD: Kennedy worked behind the scenes to have this defeated because of the aesthetics.>>
DAR
Yes, I know this is the claim. Show this. I don't think you can.
BIGD: Kennedy opposed it because of where it was.>>
DAR
Show this. There are many potential reasons for opposing this and Ted Kennedy cites them. You have provided no reason for me not to take him at his word. You are making the charge and have the burden of backing it up.
BIGD: Read this at Boston.com>>
DAR
I did. The rightie Libertarian Jacoby makes similar charges/claims but can't back them up any better than you. He says Ted put a poison pill amendment in to kill the bill. I didn't check that claim to see if it holds up but I don't need to. Because killing the bill would be an action completely consistent with Ted saying he was against the windmills for other, substantive reasons, not related to whether they could be seen from his property.
BIGD: I know you will make excuses but there is a reason Teddy worked behind the scenes to defeat it...>>
DAR
Maybe he knew you guys would make up stories like this? He's been around a long time. Okay, now show it was the reason you claim it was.
I read your article, now read this much more fair article which shows there is a lot more nuance and competing interests being balanced here than your simplistic article lets on.
"Storm Over Mass. Windmill Plan
Plan For Nantucket Sound Wind Farm Raises Debate"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/ ... 0595.shtml --CBS
D.
***
DAR
This time I'll just stand back and let your own CBC article refute your blatant distortions:
***
BIGD: "if evolution takes place over a period of time how could global warming since 2007 (a mere two years) effect such a rapid change?"
CBC article:
"The researchers analyzed body size and life history data for Soay sheep on Hirta over a 24-year period beginning in 1985.
They found that sheep on the island aren't growing as quickly as they once did, and smaller sheep are becoming more likely to survive into adulthood, bringing the average sheep size down over time.
...Average body size has decreased by about five per cent over the last 24 years, the data show."
BIGD: "scientists believe that “climate change” is responsible for this.">>
CBC article:
"A study,... fingers climate change as *a possible* cause."
[How?]
"[The lead researcher] suggests that shorter, milder winters, caused by global climate change, mean that lambs don't need to put on as much weight in the first months of life to survive to their first birthday as lambs did when winters were colder.
In the past, only the big, healthy sheep and large lambs that had piled on weight in their first summer could survive the harsh winters on Hirta," he said. "But now, due to climate change, grass for food is available for more months of the year, and survival conditions are not so challenging.
Even the slower-growing sheep have a chance of making it, and this means smaller individuals are becoming increasingly prevalent in the population."
***
D.
***
BIGD: "The Obama Administration is working on government run health care. It would cost a fortune and it would leave people waiting in line for services.">>
DAR
Stossel is good on skepticism, drug war issues and a few other things. He's probably <a href="http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread ... 198610">an atheist too</a>, so it's hard not to like the guy. But when he touches on free market stuff he just goes bonkers because <a href="http://www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml">as a member of the Ayn Rand cult</a>, he has to toe the party line.
Here's what we know about Canadian/US comparisons. The Canadians are far more satisfied. They have better outcomes. They beat the US in any list of country healthcare comparisons. Because of the obvious efficiencies the cost to the nation is almost 1/3 less (and they cover everyone). The overall cost to the populace is maybe 90% less (premiums are laughably low, drugs cheap). They cover everyone. They pay exactly the same in taxes and, did I mention, they cover everyone?
Imagine paying the same taxes we do now, and having, essentially, free health care. That's what we could have now if we didn't pour hundreds of billions (approaching a trillion) into feeding the for profit greed based insurance, and drug, and medical industry.
In fact, we could have better health care since, after all, we're Americans, so "we're better." And Americans want it fixed. I have given you EIGHT polls now showing solid majorities wanting a public option.
But nooooo, better to sit around passing the same old debunked lies around!
My uncle was telling me last night how he pays $1,200 a month ($14,000 a year) for him and his wife. With a $5,000 deductible. So he would have to drop $20 grand before they would even pay anything. And then, if he got sick/hurt in the Fall, his deductible resets in Jan (and every year), so add another $5k if your bills go on for a while, which of course they do.
In Canada he would probably pay about the same income taxes (as I have shown), and he and his wife would probably have a monthly premium of, maybe, $150.
Oh what a horror! You could tolerate the injustices of such a system?
Oh, Bigd, you were saying something about medicare costs going up because of inefficiencies. Here is a chart showing why medicare is going to skyrocket:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Medic ... _Chart.svg
Fixing this, controlling costs, is not an option.
BIDEN: “The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy,”
DAR
So it is looking like Krugman was right. It wasn't enough. We'll need to spend more to get us out of the ditch.
How come nobody is asking GW Bush for his opinion about what to do to fix this?
Oh, I know why...
D.
**
BLK: "you are saying that because of the milder winters, the genetic defects, (recessive genes) are able to assert themselves and produce genetically inferior sheep?>>
DAR
Not even close.
I am saying Bigd's article, as usual, refutes his own claims.
I'll let SAV explain it to you. Maybe he can find a porky pig cartoon that can simplify it enough. Doubtful.
Incidentally, you do realize that all of our cattle (and nearly all of our food) have been highly engineered by humans for thousands of years? No one said anything about this slight selection for size, on this time frame, causing a change of species. That's ridiculous.
Blake, let me extend an olive branch. If you would like to be polite and have a discussion like an adult about these things, I would be most pleased to participate. You guys set the tone. You have an opportunity to ask intelligent questions about this topic and perhaps learn something. SAV is an expert on this but his answers may be complex. I might be able to translate because I speak some "nerd" and little "common folk" too.
D.
-------------
"Are you suggesting coconuts migrate!?"
(Monty Python and the Holy Grail)
***
SAV: "aggravatingly common journalistic error">>
DAR
I don't know what it is. Over the years I have had a couple newspaper articles done about me/my unique profession, or the freethinkers. They take notes rather than make a recording and they don't call back to clarify any questions. And the articles have *invariably* been *filled* with basic mistakes and misstatements of fact regarding the most mundane and straight forward things. It's like in the little notes they scratchout they are interpreting/filtering what is being said rather than recording it. A five minute proof read by me would have cleared these things up. Listening to a recording of the interview would also. It's like the details don't matter. You would think getting the story straight would be the job they are trained to do!
I pity public people that have to live daily with this constant human tendency of miscommunication, misunderstanding.
D.
***
BLk: "Yea, you all are “free thinkers” alright,...">>
DAR
As I've told you before, it's one word. Do you have a learning disorder?
freethinker n.
"A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief."
-- Webster's New World Dictionary -- Third College Edition
BLK: "...perhaps that is why you seek us out?">>
DAR
It is my dream someday to find a conservative that can keep up.
BLK: we have so much to teach you, grasshopper.">>
DAR
Hey! I was going to ask you to snatch the pebble from my hand but I was waiting until I thought you ready for that level of difficulty.
See: viewtopic.php?p=17924#p17924
D.
***
BIGD: "By waiting the way he did he allowed a lot of civilians to be killed by the genocidal idiots. By not having troops on the ground...>>
DAR
Clinton fought the republicans tooth and nail just to do the air war. Would you like to see the quotes of what the republicans of the time were saying? Here's <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/200405030001">a taste</a>. There are lots more. They called it nation building and ridiculed it ceaselessly. Al Franken (now senator) documented a bunch of these in his best seller "Lying Liars." I have a copy (signed).
Bush even got a little dig about this in the debates:
"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. I'm going
to prevent that."
--Bush v Gore debate, October 3, 2000
Are you telling me, that at the time, YOU were for the US conducting a ground war there? Really? I am really really skeptical of that. Do do have any old comments/posts from then?
BIGD: "...no one ever wins a war with air alone.>>
DAR
We did. Ask Milosevic. Objectives accomplished. ZERO combat deaths. Truly incredible.
BIGD: "That is probably one of the reasons we still have troops there today.">>
DAR
No, that has nothing to do with the reason. Stabilizing forces would have been there for a long time either way and if there was a ground war (which was not politically possible) there would have been many more killed and perhaps a bloodbath.
BIGD: Clinton had use threat of force so much no one paid attention to him.>>
DAR
That's just nonsense! He used force, and it worked. And with respect to the safety of our troops, which should be a priority, it worked perfectly.
BIGD: The withdrawal from Somalia is what led to 9/11.>>
DAR
Papa Bush got us in Somali. Clinton got us out.
D.
***
BIGD: [Gallup]
"(Support for the alternative position — replacing the current healthcare system with a government-run system — grew from 32% to 39%.)">>
DAR
What FARCE! I am surprised they had ten percent. Who is suggesting "replacing the current healthcare system with a government-run system?" [Canada doesn't even have that]
Not Obama, not me. It's not even on the table! This is a ridiculous question and a completely different question from the one we were addressing and that is, having A "PUBLIC OPTION" in addition to keeping all the private stuff.
I have given you eight mainstream polls, with non-idiotic questions, and they have all shown strong majorities for a public option. You can't deal with this so you troll for nonsense like the above.
BIGD: "At the same time, Gallup saw a seven-point increase, from 34% to 41%, in views that it is not the government’s responsibility to provide all Americans with healthcare coverage.">>
DAR
Another stupid, loaded, question. What a joke.
BIGD: 56% (which is the majority) want to keep our current system based on private insurance...>>
DAR
I want to keep private insurance. Do you think this means I don't think we should have a public option? Of course not. DIFFERENT question.
BIGD:
This is quite a bit different than the supposed 72% who want it...>>
DAR
Different question! "Public option." Pay attention. Strong majorities want a public option. Even most republicans, as I have already shown. You moved the goal posts, changed the questions and are now impressed as if you accomplished something. Thank goodness I am here to pull your pants down and show everyone what is going on eh?
BIGD: more people from all 3 parties are identifying as conservative since the election.>>
DAR
We have 3 parties? The demos, the sane repubs and the crazy repubs. You're right! I've already roasted this liberal/conservative category game. Two meaningless labels. I'm a "conservative" (on many issues). I have grown more "conservative." Who do you think I am going to vote for in the next election Bigd? Demo's self-identify at nearly TWICE the rate of repub's. Those "conservatives" flooding the Demo party shore luv them some Obama don't they. So who cares what they call themselves as long as they keep voting for sensible people like Obama.
Note to Blake: the above Gallup poll gave Obama a job approval of 63%. At least they couldn't muck up that question.
Apparently those "conservatives" still luv them some Obama!
D.
***
MEL: "sort of reminds me... how the msm attacks Sarah Palin,>>
DAR
Yes, remember how Saturday Night Live attacked her. They had a woman with a striking likeness, read her lines, verbatim, from an interview Palin did. People laughed with no mercy. How dare they be so mean as to actual repeat Sarah Palin's actual comments, word for word? I mean really. Doing that only made Palin look like... an idiot! It's so unfair.
MEL: "these [insult] (Bunny Colvin, Savonarola, Darrel) are so afraid of the message…. truth is hard to face,...>>
DAR
There is no message, no truth I am afraid to face. I'll believe anything, as long as it can be shown to be true. You just need good evidence, good arguments. And too often you guys don't have those.
MEL: we must pray for them.>>
DAR
And fervently.
MEL: God Bless ya’ll and keep up the great work!>>
DAR
Thanks. It's good to be appreciated!
D.
---------------
"There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world." --Thomas Jefferson
***
BIGD: We were in Somalia as part of the peacekeeping mission.>>
DAR
That's nice. Papa Bush put 28,000 US troops on the ground. Bush got us in, Clinton got us out.
Note:
"President George H. Bush orders 28,000 U.S. troops to Somalia, a war-torn East African nation where rival warlords were preventing the distribution of humanitarian aid to thousands of starving Somalis... the controversial mission stretched on for 15 months before being abruptly called off by President Bill Clinton in 1993."
BIGD: Clinton did not “get us out” he left after 18 combat deaths.>>
DAR
Now you want to quibble that there is a difference between "he left" but "did not get us out"?
BIGD: That emboldened bin Laden and that is why we got 9/11. In bin Laden’s own words.>>
DAR
Getting us out of Somalia is "why we got 9/11? Really?
We got 9/11 because of the incompetence and intelligence failure of GW's administration.
If you want to start quoting Bin Laden's words you will find they implicate your Bush more than anyone else. He laid out his strategy, mailed a copy to him and then Bush fell in every trap Bin Laden laid. And now we pay, in lives, prestige and treasure.
BIGD: "Sorry Darrel, you are acting like it was solely an air war. NATO finally put troops on the ground.>>
DAR
Of course. As the leader of NATO said, the proclaimed goal of the (less than 3 month) bombing mission was:
"Serbs out, peacekeepers in, refugees back"
And they did it. Zeros combat deaths. Hence the reason this is such a good example of going to war and not losing anyone on your team.
BIGD: I was not for action at all at the time.>>
DAR
Of course you weren't. Hence your breathtaking hypocrisy for now criticizing Clinton for, and I quote:
"waiting the way he did"
and
"not having troops on the ground"
and
"they were put on the ground much too late."
D.
***
The BIG Doggie DUMP
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - July)
JULY 7, JULY 8, 2009
***
"Obama has promised that he won’t increase taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 and said he will delay increases for high-income earners until 2011."
--Bloomberg article (ibid)
DAR
This is outrageous, quick, grab your teabags, let's have a party!
BIGD: "The “rich” (and 250k is by no means rich) are a tapped out resource.">>
DAR
Well obviously they aren't tapped out, or they wouldn't be rich. QED.
As with most of your material, I must say: you can't be serious. As your own article shows, "households" with a net taxable income of $250k represent the top 4.3 million of the total 150 million households.
So, of all households, graded by income, this bracket represents the very top, 2.8%.
How is this "by no means rich?"
D.
----------------------
ps. Reminder. This is a return to the rate under Clinton, and is lower than this bracket was under Reagan. We have bills to pay (i.e. Bush's war). This is hardly going to put a dent in it. We are going to need a surtax or GST and it will need to be a doosey.
In 1991, Canada was struggling with deficits so they added a 7% GST which hit nearly everything (since lowered to 5%). They are now the most solvent country in the G8.
***
DAR
Oops, I made a boo. The "4.5 million" mentioned above referred to those in the $200k bracket, not $250k bracket as I wrote. Thus, those in the 250k bracket are even a smaller percentage of the very rich.
Factcheck has this:
"Those reporting adjusted gross income of more than $250,000 to the IRS are projected to make up 2 percent of households next year..."
And: "Those folks will earn 24.1 percent of all income, and pay 43.6 percent of all personal federal income taxes..."
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/w ... makes.html
D.
***
BIGD: "George Bush had a higher GPA than Kerry...">>
DAR
Let's see if this amounts to anything:
Bush's four-year <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/co ... m">average grade</a> was 77; Kerry's was 76.
There is a phrase for this, it's called "statistically, insignificant."
BIGD: "...and he flew fighter jets so it is not like he was stupid.>>
DAR
And why was he joy riding in those soon to be discontinued fighter jets? Let's ask him:
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes." --GW Bush
Fogerty's "Fortunate Son" ("I Ain't No Senator's Son") should have been written for Chicken Hawk Bush.
BIGD: And at least Bush went into a branch of the military...">>
DAR
Bush hid out (when he bothered to show up) in a place he new would keep him safe from doing what the military does.
BIGD: The same military he is now in command of loved Bush.>>
DAR
Time to update that one. Bush was so bad he changed that. The military, which used to be a republican stronghold is shifting strongly against them. You can thank your warmonger in chief for that.
"Three years ago, 60 percent of military voters polled by the Military Times identified themselves as Republican. Today, that number has dropped to 46 percent." --Dallas Morning News, Monday, July 30, 2007
As to why, see <a href="viewtopic.php?p=4720#p4720">GOP to Vets: Drop Dead!</a>
This carried over to the defense industry too. Bush got a lot more money than Kerry, and then this happened:
"Hillary Clinton receives largest number of military donations... from the defense industry
The defense industry this year abandoned its decade-long commitment to the Republican Party, funneling the lion share of its contributions to Democratic presidential candidates, especially to Hillary Clinton who far out-paced all her competitors."
http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/10/19 ... -industry/
But this is the clincher:
***
War Critics Obama, Ron Paul Get Most Military Donations
"Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Ron Paul have little in common politically, except their opposition to the Iraq war.
Both top a new list of presidential candidates receiving campaign contributions from people who work for the **four branches of the military** and National Guard, according to a study released Thursday by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, an Illinois senator, brought in more donations from this group than any White House contender from either party. The Democrat announced Wednesday his plan to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2008." --http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/1 ... 64417.html
The military luvs them some 'Bama. Please make a note of it.
Bigd: I want to know when the MSM will start the body count of troops that are dying in Afghanistan...>>
DAR
ABC lists their names every Sunday morning. When ABC tried to devote a night to honoring them all, by name, the right-wing threw a fit.
You can thank Bush for all the dead. All 5,049 of them.
http://icasualties.org/
BIGD: "Bush has two Master’s Degrees so he can’t be all that dumb."
DAR
I am not so impressed with "Degrees" and don't recommend anyone else be impressed either. Bush had a "Bachelor's degree in history" and an "MBA." I'm not educated enough to know if that adds up to "two Master's Degrees" but I don't think it does.
D.
--------------
"I'm going to spend a lot of time on Social Security. I enjoy it. I enjoy taking on the issue. I guess, it's the Mother in me." —George W. Bush, Washington D.C., April 14, 2005
***
BIGD: [158 Obama Lies] "The guy who wrote them backed them up. The post clearly indicates that.">>
DAR
That's nice. That's hearsay. The post may actually claim that but there is a difference between pointing to someone who claims something and actually making a case anyone should believe in.
Bigd: "I have not asserted anything.">>
DAR
You made an article on your blog, bolded, underlined, and entitled:
"Obama’s 158 Documented Lies"
In your second sentence you claim to have access to "a list of 158 lies Barack Obama has told."
Now, be a Big Dog and take credit for what you have claimed. Second step, back up your claim. Back *one* up. Cherry pick. You can do it.
Bigd: I said to go to the site from whence it came and read the sources.>>
DAR
Why should I do that? I made extremely precise adjustments to 1,110 tuning pins today (and that many yesterday). Now you want me to tune the discordance out of your material? People should back up their own claims.
Bigd: Surely a man of your many talents can do that…>>
DAR
Of course. But how are YOU going to learn from someone else doing all the work again? Look at the work Randy had to do just to knock down one really silly example.
You've supposedly got "158" to cherry pick from. And you don't want to try and attempt to make a case for, and/or try to confirm, one of them?
That's curious.
Okay, couldn't resist, I peeked at a few of them. It's worse than I thought. Perhaps this explains your hit and run, full retreat... "I have not asserted anything" claim?
D.
***
BIGD: "The bottom 50% pay 3% of our taxes.">>
DAR
That's not true. There are lots of taxes hidden in plain sight, as I've covered before.
BIGD: They are not paying their fair share.>>
DAR
It's called progressive taxation and goes back, in the US, about 130 years. Perhaps it's where the phrase "you can't get blood from a stone" came from.
Bigd: The 250k people are not rich.>>
DAR
What a curious notion. I've shown that they are the top 2%.
If you randomly take 1,000 American households and pick THE top wealthiest 20 of them, you wouldn't define this group as "rich?" We have (had) 9 million millionaires btw, so they're almost all millionaires (not counting primary residence). <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/28/news/ec ... /">Link</a>.
Let's consider a little context.
Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.
About "80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day." <a href="http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/ ... s">Link</a>.
Your group, the elite wealthiest 2% earn nearly $700 every day. They represent the nosebleed pinnacle wealthy of the planet.
Yet this isn't even "rich?"
Bizarre.
Bigd: "the people he [Obama] promised not to tax will be taxed, another broken promise.>>
DAR
Two problems with this:
a) the promise was clearly with regard to income taxes (as specified by the mention of "brackets"
b) He hasn't broken it yet and he even delayed the tiny (still lower than Reagan's) increase!
Bigd: Let’s start making that bottom 50% pay their share.>>
DAR
When I pointed out that Warren Buffet, the second wealthiest person in the US said "he <a href="http://www.truthout.org/article/i-shoul ... fett">pays a lower rate of tax than any of his staff</a>," Blakes only rebuttal was to call him a liar. I didn't find that very persuasive.
Bigd: "BTW Darrel, have a nice vacation."
DAR
Thanks. If you would like a postcard, I'll need an address.
D.
------------------
"Curious how countries with typically high taxes, Canada, Sweden, Japan etc. also have high standards of living and countries with low taxes and/or incompetent collection practices (Russia) also have high levels of dysfunction and poverty." --Me
***
Bigd: "When one discounts the links to obviously biased sources then all we have is your opinion.">>
DAR
But this is a fallacy, the Genetic Fallacy. Truth is independent of it's source. To rectify this problem I told you, and I will make the offer again, if I make or cite a claim that you can't believe because of it's source, simply ask and I will back it up with another source. I don't make claims I can't back up and I don't rely upon any single source.
For example, when you hand waved away the scientific NY Times/CBS News Poll showing a strong majority support for a "public option" I provided you *seven additional* mainstream scientific polls.
BIGD: Personally I would like to see everyone cease with the insults directed at individual here and just debate.>>
DAR
I agree.
D.
***
Bigd: "I never said global temperatures were cooling since 1998. I said that the temperature in the US has been declining since then.>>
DAR
Here is what you posted on June 22:
"All of the major temperature records show that the earth’s average temperature has been falling for ten years now...">>
http://www.onebigdog.net/epa-comment-pe ... nds-today/
My response at the time:
"This is terribly misleading and based upon the utterly transparent trick of cherry picking the anomalous hot year of 1998. It's really shameless, yet I see it all the time.
Note: "And 11 of the last 12 years rank among the warmest since record keeping began in 1850."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ming-world --Scientific American, 11/07
***
DAR (new)
But the larger howler I thought was this one, which you still haven't acknowledged:
"The hottest period was in the early part of the last century, not recently." --Bigd
That was approximately June 29.
My response at the time was:
"How can you say something so foolish and clearly false? Where on earth do you get such bogus information?
Bigd, look at this standard, uncontroversial chart, and then tell me that "the hottest period was in the early part of the last century."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instr ... Record.png
D.
***
BLK: “The ACLU violates the Constitution every day by attempting to prohibit various and sundry Christian symbols from being displayed.”>>
DAR (said)
Notice you don’t give a single specific example.>>
BLK (new) "you wanted an example of the ACLU prohibitingymbols? Google William Mosher, the founder of the Star of Hope, a charitable institution based in Houston
Texas- To honor Mr. Mosher, the city gave the Star of Hope one square yard of concrete on the sidewalk in front of City Hall, where the Star of Hope erected a stele with an insert at the top, wherein rested a Bible in a glass case.>>
DAR
Thanks for providing the example. Their action was clearly unconstitutional and a government endorsement of religion. Can't do that.
You said: "The ACLU violates the Constitution." No, they work to have the constitution upheld. The city folded because they knew they would lose. The precedent is clear. The government mustn't be favoring any religion. Putting a religious display on government grounds/property (or doing novel procedures to try and get around that) is not neutral, it's endorsement. See the Lemon Test.
If this were a display devoted to honoring one of the thousands of gods you don't believe in, I think the scales may be lifted from your eyes and you might be able to see the problem. Best for government to stay out of the religion business. See world history.
You're a consistent atheist with regard to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities">all of those other gods</a>. I'm just wee bit more consistent than you. I don't make an exception for that last one.
D.
***
Bigd: So when Tina Fey said that she could see Russia from her house (as Palin) that was verbatim?>>
DAR
No, that was comic hyperbole. The Tina Fey skit was so successful they had several of them. One of them was a verbatim recital of some interview/speech she did. The "I can see Russia from my house" bit was not the verbatim one.
BIGD: As I recall, and as the [v]ideo will show, Palin said you could see Russia from Alaska. That is a true statement.>>
DAR
Yes it is. People ridiculed it because it was in the context of her answering a question about her foreign policy experience. Hence the Tina Fey exaggeration/quip.
See below.
D.
--------------
"They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." (Asked by ABC's Charles Gibson "what insight into Russian actions" the proximity of Alaska provides her, September 11, 2008.)
"Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of... We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state." (Asked by CBS' Katie Couric to explain her foreign policy credentials, especially regarding Russia, September 25, 2008.)
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/sara ... atest-hits
***
I met a fellow on the weekend who said those on the left are terrified of Palin. After all, "why would she be getting so much attention/coverage?"
It's an idea I am unable to take seriously (now or before her latest belly flop).
But what do voters think? Did she make them more or less likely to support the McCain ticket?
Answer here: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/ ... rizer.html
D.
***
Bigd: "Remember during the campaign when Obama said that Bush did everything wrong in the war on terror.">>
DAR
No, actually I don't. Perhaps you can refresh my memory while backing up the exaggeration upon which you base your whole post?
Bigd: "Obama... convinced people that McCain said it would be OK to be in the war for 100 years (a blatant lie).">>
DAR
I thought that was a cheap shot since I understood how McCain meant it.
Factcheck has a <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-c ... ">overview of it here</a>.
They give it two Pinocchios, which seems about right (four being a whopper).
If that one is a "blatant lie" you must have been really upset when McCain ran with, and wouldn't back down from this smear:
"Obama's one accomplishment? Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners."
--McCain "Education" Ad, September 7, 2008.
Fact checker gave that one http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-c ... ation.html --three Pinocchios.
D.
***
***
"Obama has promised that he won’t increase taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 and said he will delay increases for high-income earners until 2011."
--Bloomberg article (ibid)
DAR
This is outrageous, quick, grab your teabags, let's have a party!
BIGD: "The “rich” (and 250k is by no means rich) are a tapped out resource.">>
DAR
Well obviously they aren't tapped out, or they wouldn't be rich. QED.
As with most of your material, I must say: you can't be serious. As your own article shows, "households" with a net taxable income of $250k represent the top 4.3 million of the total 150 million households.
So, of all households, graded by income, this bracket represents the very top, 2.8%.
How is this "by no means rich?"
D.
----------------------
ps. Reminder. This is a return to the rate under Clinton, and is lower than this bracket was under Reagan. We have bills to pay (i.e. Bush's war). This is hardly going to put a dent in it. We are going to need a surtax or GST and it will need to be a doosey.
In 1991, Canada was struggling with deficits so they added a 7% GST which hit nearly everything (since lowered to 5%). They are now the most solvent country in the G8.
***
DAR
Oops, I made a boo. The "4.5 million" mentioned above referred to those in the $200k bracket, not $250k bracket as I wrote. Thus, those in the 250k bracket are even a smaller percentage of the very rich.
Factcheck has this:
"Those reporting adjusted gross income of more than $250,000 to the IRS are projected to make up 2 percent of households next year..."
And: "Those folks will earn 24.1 percent of all income, and pay 43.6 percent of all personal federal income taxes..."
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/w ... makes.html
D.
***
BIGD: "George Bush had a higher GPA than Kerry...">>
DAR
Let's see if this amounts to anything:
Bush's four-year <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/co ... m">average grade</a> was 77; Kerry's was 76.
There is a phrase for this, it's called "statistically, insignificant."
BIGD: "...and he flew fighter jets so it is not like he was stupid.>>
DAR
And why was he joy riding in those soon to be discontinued fighter jets? Let's ask him:
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes." --GW Bush
Fogerty's "Fortunate Son" ("I Ain't No Senator's Son") should have been written for Chicken Hawk Bush.
BIGD: And at least Bush went into a branch of the military...">>
DAR
Bush hid out (when he bothered to show up) in a place he new would keep him safe from doing what the military does.
BIGD: The same military he is now in command of loved Bush.>>
DAR
Time to update that one. Bush was so bad he changed that. The military, which used to be a republican stronghold is shifting strongly against them. You can thank your warmonger in chief for that.
"Three years ago, 60 percent of military voters polled by the Military Times identified themselves as Republican. Today, that number has dropped to 46 percent." --Dallas Morning News, Monday, July 30, 2007
As to why, see <a href="viewtopic.php?p=4720#p4720">GOP to Vets: Drop Dead!</a>
This carried over to the defense industry too. Bush got a lot more money than Kerry, and then this happened:
"Hillary Clinton receives largest number of military donations... from the defense industry
The defense industry this year abandoned its decade-long commitment to the Republican Party, funneling the lion share of its contributions to Democratic presidential candidates, especially to Hillary Clinton who far out-paced all her competitors."
http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/10/19 ... -industry/
But this is the clincher:
***
War Critics Obama, Ron Paul Get Most Military Donations
"Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Ron Paul have little in common politically, except their opposition to the Iraq war.
Both top a new list of presidential candidates receiving campaign contributions from people who work for the **four branches of the military** and National Guard, according to a study released Thursday by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, an Illinois senator, brought in more donations from this group than any White House contender from either party. The Democrat announced Wednesday his plan to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2008." --http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/1 ... 64417.html
The military luvs them some 'Bama. Please make a note of it.
Bigd: I want to know when the MSM will start the body count of troops that are dying in Afghanistan...>>
DAR
ABC lists their names every Sunday morning. When ABC tried to devote a night to honoring them all, by name, the right-wing threw a fit.
You can thank Bush for all the dead. All 5,049 of them.
http://icasualties.org/
BIGD: "Bush has two Master’s Degrees so he can’t be all that dumb."
DAR
I am not so impressed with "Degrees" and don't recommend anyone else be impressed either. Bush had a "Bachelor's degree in history" and an "MBA." I'm not educated enough to know if that adds up to "two Master's Degrees" but I don't think it does.
D.
--------------
"I'm going to spend a lot of time on Social Security. I enjoy it. I enjoy taking on the issue. I guess, it's the Mother in me." —George W. Bush, Washington D.C., April 14, 2005
***
BIGD: [158 Obama Lies] "The guy who wrote them backed them up. The post clearly indicates that.">>
DAR
That's nice. That's hearsay. The post may actually claim that but there is a difference between pointing to someone who claims something and actually making a case anyone should believe in.
Bigd: "I have not asserted anything.">>
DAR
You made an article on your blog, bolded, underlined, and entitled:
"Obama’s 158 Documented Lies"
In your second sentence you claim to have access to "a list of 158 lies Barack Obama has told."
Now, be a Big Dog and take credit for what you have claimed. Second step, back up your claim. Back *one* up. Cherry pick. You can do it.
Bigd: I said to go to the site from whence it came and read the sources.>>
DAR
Why should I do that? I made extremely precise adjustments to 1,110 tuning pins today (and that many yesterday). Now you want me to tune the discordance out of your material? People should back up their own claims.
Bigd: Surely a man of your many talents can do that…>>
DAR
Of course. But how are YOU going to learn from someone else doing all the work again? Look at the work Randy had to do just to knock down one really silly example.
You've supposedly got "158" to cherry pick from. And you don't want to try and attempt to make a case for, and/or try to confirm, one of them?
That's curious.
Okay, couldn't resist, I peeked at a few of them. It's worse than I thought. Perhaps this explains your hit and run, full retreat... "I have not asserted anything" claim?
D.
***
BIGD: "The bottom 50% pay 3% of our taxes.">>
DAR
That's not true. There are lots of taxes hidden in plain sight, as I've covered before.
BIGD: They are not paying their fair share.>>
DAR
It's called progressive taxation and goes back, in the US, about 130 years. Perhaps it's where the phrase "you can't get blood from a stone" came from.
Bigd: The 250k people are not rich.>>
DAR
What a curious notion. I've shown that they are the top 2%.
If you randomly take 1,000 American households and pick THE top wealthiest 20 of them, you wouldn't define this group as "rich?" We have (had) 9 million millionaires btw, so they're almost all millionaires (not counting primary residence). <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/28/news/ec ... /">Link</a>.
Let's consider a little context.
Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.
About "80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day." <a href="http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/ ... s">Link</a>.
Your group, the elite wealthiest 2% earn nearly $700 every day. They represent the nosebleed pinnacle wealthy of the planet.
Yet this isn't even "rich?"
Bizarre.
Bigd: "the people he [Obama] promised not to tax will be taxed, another broken promise.>>
DAR
Two problems with this:
a) the promise was clearly with regard to income taxes (as specified by the mention of "brackets"
b) He hasn't broken it yet and he even delayed the tiny (still lower than Reagan's) increase!
Bigd: Let’s start making that bottom 50% pay their share.>>
DAR
When I pointed out that Warren Buffet, the second wealthiest person in the US said "he <a href="http://www.truthout.org/article/i-shoul ... fett">pays a lower rate of tax than any of his staff</a>," Blakes only rebuttal was to call him a liar. I didn't find that very persuasive.
Bigd: "BTW Darrel, have a nice vacation."
DAR
Thanks. If you would like a postcard, I'll need an address.
D.
------------------
"Curious how countries with typically high taxes, Canada, Sweden, Japan etc. also have high standards of living and countries with low taxes and/or incompetent collection practices (Russia) also have high levels of dysfunction and poverty." --Me
***
Bigd: "When one discounts the links to obviously biased sources then all we have is your opinion.">>
DAR
But this is a fallacy, the Genetic Fallacy. Truth is independent of it's source. To rectify this problem I told you, and I will make the offer again, if I make or cite a claim that you can't believe because of it's source, simply ask and I will back it up with another source. I don't make claims I can't back up and I don't rely upon any single source.
For example, when you hand waved away the scientific NY Times/CBS News Poll showing a strong majority support for a "public option" I provided you *seven additional* mainstream scientific polls.
BIGD: Personally I would like to see everyone cease with the insults directed at individual here and just debate.>>
DAR
I agree.
D.
***
Bigd: "I never said global temperatures were cooling since 1998. I said that the temperature in the US has been declining since then.>>
DAR
Here is what you posted on June 22:
"All of the major temperature records show that the earth’s average temperature has been falling for ten years now...">>
http://www.onebigdog.net/epa-comment-pe ... nds-today/
My response at the time:
"This is terribly misleading and based upon the utterly transparent trick of cherry picking the anomalous hot year of 1998. It's really shameless, yet I see it all the time.
Note: "And 11 of the last 12 years rank among the warmest since record keeping began in 1850."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ming-world --Scientific American, 11/07
***
DAR (new)
But the larger howler I thought was this one, which you still haven't acknowledged:
"The hottest period was in the early part of the last century, not recently." --Bigd
That was approximately June 29.
My response at the time was:
"How can you say something so foolish and clearly false? Where on earth do you get such bogus information?
Bigd, look at this standard, uncontroversial chart, and then tell me that "the hottest period was in the early part of the last century."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instr ... Record.png
D.
***
BLK: “The ACLU violates the Constitution every day by attempting to prohibit various and sundry Christian symbols from being displayed.”>>
DAR (said)
Notice you don’t give a single specific example.>>
BLK (new) "you wanted an example of the ACLU prohibiting
Texas- To honor Mr. Mosher, the city gave the Star of Hope one square yard of concrete on the sidewalk in front of City Hall, where the Star of Hope erected a stele with an insert at the top, wherein rested a Bible in a glass case.>>
DAR
Thanks for providing the example. Their action was clearly unconstitutional and a government endorsement of religion. Can't do that.
You said: "The ACLU violates the Constitution." No, they work to have the constitution upheld. The city folded because they knew they would lose. The precedent is clear. The government mustn't be favoring any religion. Putting a religious display on government grounds/property (or doing novel procedures to try and get around that) is not neutral, it's endorsement. See the Lemon Test.
If this were a display devoted to honoring one of the thousands of gods you don't believe in, I think the scales may be lifted from your eyes and you might be able to see the problem. Best for government to stay out of the religion business. See world history.
You're a consistent atheist with regard to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities">all of those other gods</a>. I'm just wee bit more consistent than you. I don't make an exception for that last one.
D.
***
Bigd: So when Tina Fey said that she could see Russia from her house (as Palin) that was verbatim?>>
DAR
No, that was comic hyperbole. The Tina Fey skit was so successful they had several of them. One of them was a verbatim recital of some interview/speech she did. The "I can see Russia from my house" bit was not the verbatim one.
BIGD: As I recall, and as the [v]ideo will show, Palin said you could see Russia from Alaska. That is a true statement.>>
DAR
Yes it is. People ridiculed it because it was in the context of her answering a question about her foreign policy experience. Hence the Tina Fey exaggeration/quip.
See below.
D.
--------------
"They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." (Asked by ABC's Charles Gibson "what insight into Russian actions" the proximity of Alaska provides her, September 11, 2008.)
"Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of... We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state." (Asked by CBS' Katie Couric to explain her foreign policy credentials, especially regarding Russia, September 25, 2008.)
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/sara ... atest-hits
***
I met a fellow on the weekend who said those on the left are terrified of Palin. After all, "why would she be getting so much attention/coverage?"
It's an idea I am unable to take seriously (now or before her latest belly flop).
But what do voters think? Did she make them more or less likely to support the McCain ticket?
Answer here: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/ ... rizer.html
D.
***
Bigd: "Remember during the campaign when Obama said that Bush did everything wrong in the war on terror.">>
DAR
No, actually I don't. Perhaps you can refresh my memory while backing up the exaggeration upon which you base your whole post?
Bigd: "Obama... convinced people that McCain said it would be OK to be in the war for 100 years (a blatant lie).">>
DAR
I thought that was a cheap shot since I understood how McCain meant it.
Factcheck has a <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-c ... ">overview of it here</a>.
They give it two Pinocchios, which seems about right (four being a whopper).
If that one is a "blatant lie" you must have been really upset when McCain ran with, and wouldn't back down from this smear:
"Obama's one accomplishment? Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners."
--McCain "Education" Ad, September 7, 2008.
Fact checker gave that one http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-c ... ation.html --three Pinocchios.
D.
***
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - July)
thanks, Darrel, for posting these - it's a great resource when I need to look up info for my own discussions/debates with my conservative friends. Keep it coming!
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - July)
Thanks Betsy. I have been using this thread as a resource too. Remember the "contrl F" page word search function. Very handy.
I have lacked time to kick much Doggy butt lately. Here is a bunch more from a few weeks ago:
***************
JULY 9-12
***
BLK: "His approval rating country wide is the lowest it has been at 56%. His supporters will say that this is a good number, and it is,...>>
DAR
Of course Obama's extremely high numbers will go down. Considering the house is still on fire from the fire Bush set, and the hopes some have that it will quickly be put out (it won't), it's amazing he's even near 60% at all.
Here are the last ten mainstream polls of his Job Approval.
Quinnipiac U. 57% (6/23-29/09)
CNN/ORC 61% (6/26-28/09)
ABC/Washington Post 65% (6/18-21/09)
CBS/New York Times 63% (6/12-16/09)
NBC/Wall St. Journal 56% (6/12-15/09)
Pew 61% (6/10-14/09)
FOX/OD RV 62% (6/9-10/09)
Ipsos/McClatchy 64% (6/4-8/09)
Diageo/Hotline 65% (6/4-7/09)
Marist RV 56% (6/1-3/09)
Average = 61.9%
D.
***
Bigd: "Darrel, care to prove Bush did not show up for [National Guard] drill?">>
DAR
Sure. I didn't know anyone even denied that. I have found Cecil Adam's "The Straight Dope" to be a very dependable source over the years. He gives a nice short account of the standard understanding of this. Read it here:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... onal-guard
D.
***
BIGD: "Can’t thank Bush for all the dead.">>
DAR
I think you're right. I overstated that a bit. The original offensive in Afghanistan had strong bipartisan support. The country, the world, was united.
Unfortunately, it wasn't followed up properly because of the focus on Iraq. And then, with the fiasco in Irag, it all fell apart, including our support around the world.
BIGD: Obama said he would bring the troops immediately.>>
DAR
What? I must ask again if you are, as my wife likes to put it, "on glue." You really believe, that Obama said, he would "bring the troops immediately?" Really? My certainty level that your claim is false, is 100%.
Bigd: "That changed but he did not do what he said he would.">>
DAR
With the previous comment you just showed you have no knowledge of this subject. And of course, you back none of it up.
D.
***
BLK: Oh boy- did you [insult], [insult], [insult]. This lowers my estimate of you quite a bit.>>
DAR
I hope you weren't under the impression that I was interested in you having a certain "estimate" of me. What my goats think of me matters more (and they think I'm great btw).
So no rebuttal as usual eh? That's too bad as usual.
If you don't like the basic info at the Straight Dope. Try:
http://www.factcheck.org/democratic_gro ... ainst.html -- Factcheck
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature ... index.html --this more in depth article in Salon
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/12/132214/106 --KOS has a timeline nicely laid out here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._ ... ontroversy --Wiki has lots of well referenced information
Standard stuff, old news. You won't read it and you wouldn't understand it if you did. What matters is the Worst President Ever is gone.
D.
***
BIGD: "I can’t believe that people still believe this lie that is truly designed to deceive people.... One cannot compare earned income to unearned income when comparing tax rates.">>
DAR
Nice try but your attempt to make a distinction between "earned" and "unearned" income is quite beside the point and completely irrelevant to how much tax people pay, on the money they make.
That is the question. Your categories are irrelevant. What matters is "income" and tax paid, NOT the name of what particular box the IRS has us put a artificially created category of our income in. There are lots of other boxes too. Irrelevant.
Buffet makes an income of X, and it is taxed.
Buffet's staff members makes an income of X, and it is taxed.
Buffet's staff pays a HIGHER rate of tax, on their income, than he pays, on his income.
You don't even deny this, because you can't.
You can put all of your phony categories of "income" aside. What matters is, tax paid, on income. Buffet's right (and I trust him to know a wee bit more about such things than you). He and the billionaires like him, shouldn't be paying a lower rate of tax on the money they make than regular folks do. They should be paying a higher rate. A lot higher rate.
D.
***
BLK: "You claim that 1998 was an “anomalous” year, because it was unduly hot and what?- skewed results?>>
DAR
Correct. If you look at a 10 or e1even year period. Which no sensible person would do.
Imagine years, as waves, and they are coming into shore in slow motion.
A large one comes in (1998). Then ten more, but they are a little smaller than (1998) but still very large in relation to the last 130 waves (and perhaps 1,000). After the biggest one (1998) you say "hey, look, they are getting a little smaller now." Well, only in relation to that one big one (1998), but they are still near record setting waves (years). And the concern is they will be getting bigger (and the ocean level higher).
No one expects them to increase in perfect stair steps. GW warming is a statistical average increase around a slowly increasing mean.
BLK: Weather is anomalous in and of itself, because what climate does is change>>
DAR
Please don't confuse "weather" and "climate" as you just did. They are two very different things.
BLK: can you truly base your observations on a 11 to 12 year period with ANY accuracy?>>
DAR
No. That's why I complain when people do it. Bigdog denied doing this and I provided the exact quote he posted. See above.
D.
***
BIGD: "Yes, they want a government run system...>>
DAR
That reminds me. The Gallup poll question was even more ridiculous than I realized above. It asked about a "government-run system." Canada doesn't even have that! They have single payer. So this stupid poll not only didn't ask about a "public option" which was what we had been talking about, this stupid poll was asking people if they wanted a system, potentially, more socialized than Canada's! And they still got 39%. Amazing.
BIGD: it will drive many health insurance companies out of business.>>
DAR
We should be so lucky. We have what, about 18,000 dying a year because they have no insurance. We have tens of millions uninsured, and then we have this:
"McGuire's exit compensation from UnitedHealth, expected to be around $1.1 billion, would be the largest golden parachute in the history of corporate America."
Link
Our system finds it useful to compensate a single individual to the tune of over a billion dollars. The American people are getting ROYALLY shagged. How long are they going to put up with this?
Bigd: the polls you show have similarly loaded questions>>
DAR
Show this. Explain.
BIGD: or they over sample a particular group.>>
DAR
Flat wrong. They are all scientific, random polls. Each of the eight I have submitted. And they all show strong majorities [for a public option].
D.
***
Thanks for the questions Mike. I'll answer them all.
MK: How much longer are you going to blame Bush?>>
DAR
Quite a while. Years. Most of the bills for his $4-5 trillion war haven't even arrived yet. It's also normal for the first year to be considered a shared budget. Etc.
MK: Which party had control of Congress when the stock market and economy peaked and started downward?>>
DAR
The DOW was about 12.5k when the Demos got in. It later went up to 14k. Drawing a direct line of causation between ups and downs in the market and who has a slight majority in Congress, would be unwarranted and silly, of course. I would expect to see a good effect if a party had all power for six years. The GOP market sucked whatever angle you shake it from. If the market performed as it did under Clinton, the DOW would be at 33k now. It's not, and that's not Obama's fault or some Demo's in Congress who didn't even stand up to Bush.
MK: Who headed the House Financial Services Committee when the housing bubble broke?>>
DAR
The head of this committee doesn't get to run big things like bubbles and the idea that he could have caused one in many months, is absurd. It's a little more complicated than that.
Who ran on the "ownership society?" Your Bush, and he had his congress too. But the seeds were planted before that. Nicely explained <a href="http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/misce ... x">here</a>. Phil Gramm planted these seeds.
MK: Which direction is the economy going now?>>
DAR
Too vague. Sideways.
MK: Which direction is the unemployment rate going now?>>
DAR
This lagging indicator is still going bad and probably will for some time. Obama has great gifts, but he can't walk on water (no one can).
MK: And where did Obama say it would peak?>>
DAR
He didn't. Read the report, read the footnotes. I have. Here are the qualifiers in the footnotes (thanks to Bigd):
***
"Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action."
And in the conclusion:
"This study has sought to investigate the likely job creation effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan currently under consideration. As emphasized at many points in the analysis, there is substantial uncertainty around all of our estimates. Nevertheless, we believe they can provide useful guidance as we go forward."
Also:
"These estimates, like the aggregate ones, are subject to substantial margins of error. One additional source of uncertainty concerns the impact of the state fiscal relief."
MK: How would you rate the first stimulus package?>>
DAR
Expensive.
MK: Do we need a second?
DAR
Probably.
MK: What about a third?>>
DAR
I hope not.
MK: And how do you think we will pay for them?>>
DAR
By spending money we don't have. That's how we got out of the ditch the last time the GOP did this to us in Great Depression 1.0.
MK: When do you think all this stimulus will get the economy going again?>>
DAR
Don't know, and don't even know how much credit the stimulus would deserve. Some of it's placebo.
MK: Why don’t the liberal left admit they want a socialist country?>>
DAR
Because they don't. Best to avoid the word "socialist" because of it's vagueness and commie baggage. The right uses it as an epithet, constantly. Some people want more collectivism, some want less. This doesn't make them socialist. One could easily argue that we are up to our eyeballs in "socialism" now and that this has made America great. Let me know if you would like a long list of examples.
MK: Why don’t you?>>
DAR
Because I don't want a socialist country.
MK: Can’t you guys say it out loud?>>
DAR
People shouldn't say things out loud that aren't true.
MK: And, oh yeah, how much longer are you going to blame Bush?>>
DAR
A very long time.
D.
***
VIC: Dar that letter does not pertain to the same briefing that Nancy Pelosi lied about.>>
DAR
That letter refers to the CIA lying to Congress, which confirms Pelosi's claim.
Nancy's claim with regard to her specific briefings cannot be shown to be true or false because they weren't allowed to take notes.
VID: "What a circus!!!!">>
DAR
Actually, the circus just left. Now we are cleaning up. There were a lot of elephants. They left a lot of poop.
D.
***
BLK: "my spell checker goes nuts when I try to put free and thinker together>>
DAR
My spell checker doesn't. Lot's of freethinkers aren't atheists.
BLK: "made-up words that will make it into the dictionary">>
DAR
Will make it? Blake should read a little about his nation's history and get up to speed. This might be a start:
<url=http://www.amazon.com/Freethinkers-Amer ... 228&sr=8-1]Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism[/url].
The word "freethinker" would have been in the dictionary back when they invented dictionaries.
D.
-----------------
Short version:
freethinkers
Related: Philosophy
"Those who arrive at conclusions, particularly in questions of religion, by employing the rules of reason while rejecting supernatural authority or ecclesiastical tradition. The freethinkers believe that independence of thought from such authority leads all men to essentially identical conclusions concerning morality and religion. The name came into general use in the 18th cent. after the publication (1713) of Anthony Collins's Discourse of Freethinking Occasioned by the Rise and Growth of a Sect Called Freethinkers. The movement took different forms in different countries. In England it was intimately connected with deism but did not break completely with traditional Christianity. It took a more radical form in France. Voltaire renounced all connection with Christianity, and the Encyclopedists broke with religion altogether. Freethinking also has an important social side and influenced the philosophies of the Freemasons and, in France, the Culte de
l'Être Suprême. In the United States the organizations established to further freethinking include the American Rationalist Association, the American Secular Union, and the Freethinkers of America. The International Order for Ethics and Culture, organized at Bern in 1908, is designed to investigate the ethical factors in society without theological or metaphysical bias."
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/f1/freethin.asp --Columbia Encyclopedia
***
BLK: "Salon, Kos, Wiki? Is that ALL you read?">>
DAR
It's all standard information Blake. It's not even controversial. Would you like a dozen more references (to add to the five I gave) to ignore, not read and dismiss with a hand wave?
How are you going to get better if you won't take your medicine?
D.
***
MIKE: The Clinton stock market... was a direct result of the Y2K problem.>>
DAR
You think the Y2K problem made the stock market go up 330%? That's new one. Did you make that up yourself?
The total, GLOBAL estimated cost of preparing for Y2K was about $300 billion. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/586938.stm
The US may get a third of that. I nice stimulus for sure, but hardly going to add the trillions of net gain in stock value we enjoyed during the 90's.
Extra point for creative thinking!
D.
***
Bigd: "Buffet pays the same rate on his unearned income as his employees pay on their unearned income.">>
DAR
You're playing the same game of trying to hide income in different boxes for the purpose of avoiding addressing it.
Hey, that's the same game the rich have gotten away with for the purpose of avoiding pay taxes on that money! Nifty.
Bottomline: Mr. Buffet pays a far lower rate on what he made, than his staff does on what they made. Nearly half in fact. That's not right.
I'll let Mr. Buffet respond:
***
"Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.
Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation."
TimesUKonline
***
Bigd: "as much as 16.1 million dollars will go to, what else, the salt marsh rodent.>>
DAR
What your source actually said:
"...as much as $16.1 million from the stimulus program is going to save the San Francisco Bay Area habitat of, AMONG OTHER THINGS, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse."
So even your article isn't clear that the $16.1m is going for the endangered mouse (even if the money were going for the mouse, now debunked by Randy).
The Washington Times is probably still stinging from getting caught with their pants down the last time they were dishonest about this. Scientific American has a good overview:
Salt marsh mouse: An endangered species becomes a stimulus scapegoat.
Note: "...thanks to the Endangered Species Act, the government has a legal requirement to help it."
It's good to follow the law isn't it Bigd?
Our antibiotics are failing. Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) now causes 19,000 deaths every year in the US, this is more than HIV/AIDS (CDC 2007). I was reading about a important and powerful new antibiotic we've made by using a little critter that lives in the deep sea. From my July Scientific American, pg. 49:
"A powerful new antibiotic called abyssomicin, is made by Verrucosispora,... a bacterium that lives in the Sea of Japan at a depth of nearly 300 meters.
My point? The idea that we have the right to stomp around and willfully terminate species (make extinct) that have existed for 100's of millions of years is not only extreme arrogance and stupidity, it's also not in our own self-interest.
As to the cost. If we go with the 16m, over the last several years, (not counting future costs) that's about what Bush was blowing each and every hour in Iraq.
D.
***
BLK: "can’t get Bush out of their head, and that will be their downfall...">>
DAR
Read it and weep:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24795.html "Bashing George W. Bush still politically potent"
People don't have THAT short of a memory. You're going to be be wearing this mill stone around your neck for quite a while. Smile, it looks good on you.
D.
***
DAR
Filled with howlers, all debunked before. You don't care about truth, you don't care about accuracy, and you don't learn. This is a bad combination.
Just one, then I need to do something useful.
BLK: "The big problem is that a lot of the earners who actually make $350,000 and more are small businesses">>
DAR
Notice the word "make."
BLK: If you gross, as a company, $350,000- well, some of that money goes to...[expenses]>>
DAR
If you gross 350k, you are not "making" 350k.
BLK: "...the owners of a small business may only actually make 20- 30% of the gross,...>>
DAR
Or less.
BLK: "...and yet his taxes are based on the gross amount. This is not right."
DAR
No, it isn't (factually) right.
One just shakes their head. I can't imagine anyone taking your writings seriously at this point. And that's unfortunate. So on to something better.
D.
----------------------
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of
Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." --Robert Wilensky
***
DAR
Blake, it's important to teach kindergartners age appropriate sex ed. They need to know that if a republican leader comes around and touches them "there," they need to run away and go tell a democrat quick so the republican can be .
D.
***
DAR
Oh, just one other little bit. Not too serious really. I saw this picture the other day in my science magazine and it instantly made me think of how, like the adult human in the background, I try to assist you and Bigd. On the left, Bigd, more distinguished and intelligent (look at the wisdom in those eye). After getting to know you better, Blake, I see you sort of as the [url=http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm41/Darrelxxx/Meandthemonkeys.jpg]little fellow in the center.
Lots of sound and fury. Not so much significance!
D.
**
BIGD: "I’ll let this guy explain it to you.">>
DAR
All song and dance that accomplishes nothing and none of it addresses the simple, undeniable, fact, of Warren Buffet's claim.
Buffet made $46 million in one year and paid a tax of 17.7% on it.
His secretary made $60,000, and paid a tax of 30% on it.
Your fellow wrote a 2,098 word article futilely trying everything he could to obfuscate this simple fact that even a child can understand.
Your article says:
"Capital gains are taxed at 15% versus income from your job that is taxed at 25% to 40%. So Buffett was comparing completely different tax rates. He was comparing apples to oranges."
DAR
Well that is the point isn't it? All this is just as irrelevant as when you copied this argument from this guy the first time. You can call these income categories apples or you can call them oranges. It doesn't matter because in the end what we are talking about is "fruit" (making money). People making "fruit" and paying some of that "fruit" to the government.
Time to stop letting the rich get away with paying *a lower rate* on their fruit, no matter whether they are paid in apples, oranges, or Blake's favorite: bananas!
D.
***
BLK: It wouldn’t matter what I said, you’d take the opposite side.>>
DAR
That's not true. When you are right I will agree with you and back you up. And you will appreciate it when I do because backing things up is a bit of a specialty of mine. Unfortunately, I haven't had much opportunity to back you up very often. I'll try harder.
BLK: These are facts, just not convenient facts for you- especially about Canada->>
DAR
Canadians are quite satisfied with their health care but forget them, use any other similar peer country. You accuse me of bias but I am not patriotic, I am interested in pragmatic, utilitarian, results for everyone.
An anecdote from yesterday:
My wife has a slightly suspicious mole on her leg. She is thinking of getting it looked at, i.e. tested. She is hesitating because she hasn't been able to get insurance yet (non-citizen) but now can (just got green card). If she even goes to get this tested (negative or not), this may effect her ability to get insurance (cancer test on record). She has a friend this happened to on a cancer test that was in fact, negative.
This country, is, insane.
People who defend this insanity are cult members who are so wedded to ideology they can't think straight.
BLK: I can understand your touchiness- having relatives (distant) in Montreal,>>
DAR
Not sure which orifice you pulled that one out of but I have a good idea. I don't have any relatives in Montreal nor do I know anyone there.
Now let's review. A couple questions for you Blake. Please answer them. From an extensive international poll by Gallup I have referenced before:
"One-fourth of American respondents are either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with "the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation," (6% very satisfied and 19% somewhat satisfied)."
Dar: That's 25% satisfied, total.
"This level of satisfaction is significantly lower than in Canada, where 57% are satisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, including 16% who are very satisfied."
Dar: That's 73% satisfied, total.
Question for Blake. Which country is (far) more satisfied with the availability and affordability of healthcare?
Next:
"44% of Americans are very dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, and nearly three-fourths (72%) are either somewhat or very dissatisfied."
Dar: That's 72% dissatisfied. The number for Canada is 17%, the number for Great Britain is 25%.
Question for Blake: how many times greater is the US dissatisfaction than the Canadian dissatisfaction? (hint: divide 72 by 17. You should get 4.2). 4.2x greater dissatisfaction? That's an extraordinary number!
Next:
On "the quality of medical care [the countries] are not overly different -- 48% of Americans, 52% of Canadians, and 42% of Britons say they are satisfied."
Question: Which country has the highest satisfaction with the "quality of medical care?"
Conclusion: "72% of Americans say they are dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, and 50% are dissatisfied with the quality of medical care..."
Are those good numbers Blake? Are they better than Canada's numbers?
Source:
Healthcare System Ratings: U.S., Great Britain, Canada
***
BLK: "now we’re giving money to Africa?">>
DAR
Actually, you know who gave a lot of money to Africa?
GW Bush.
I think he had the goal of $15 billion but not sure he made it.
It's one of the few things he is nearly universally given credit and praise for (and I agree 100%).
Except... by you perhaps?
That's rather ironic isn't it.
D.
***
[Pilmer anti-global warming material]
DAR
Pilmer's from the same cast of clowns I have been roasting for years. He's a quacky Australian on the dole of a Canadian rightwing mining group called "Natural Resource Stewardship Project" (Canada has more oil than Saudia Arabia, this is why GW denial pops up there more often than it normally would).
Some standard roast:
***
Plimer also states that El Niño is caused by earthquakes and volcanic activity at the mid-ocean ridges.[8] This contrasts with the view held by the meteorological and oceanographic communities, which is that El Niño arises from dynamical interactions between the atmosphere and ocean.[9]
Plimer's book has been criticised by numerous mainstream scientists.[10][11]
University of Adelaide climate change Professor Barry Brook stated Plimer has not published scientific papers on climate change.[12] "Heaven & Earth" was reviewed in The Australian newspaper by Michael Ashley, Professor of astrophysics at the University of New South Wales, who says that if Plimer could actually demonstrate that the various lines of scientific research were "fundamentally flawed, then it would rank as one of the greatest discoveries of the century and would almost certainly earn him a Nobel prize".
Ashley's review finishes by suggesting:
"Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not "merely" atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics. Plimer's book deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken.".[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer
DAR
Von Daniken is the fellow who finds 500,000 year old spark plugs, etc.,.
D.
***
VIC: "Try this one and deny it.">>
DAR
You're funny. The Fraser Institute is a far right <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... ibertarian Think Tank</a>. (Global warming deniers of course). If you think libertarians aren't taken seriously in this country (and they are not, they could hold their conventions in a phone booth) they are laughed at in Canada. Positively, laughed at.
Better than read your article, I <a href="http://www.fraseramerica.org/Commerce.W ... .pdf">went and read the study it was based upon</a>. Same author. That's what he's referring to anyway.
It's a nice PDF. Looks shiny on fancy paper I bet. Trouble is, did you notice, almost no footnotes? I noticed that after the first two pages (of 22). Just in the first two pages, lot's and lot's of claims, lots of howlers, but not even an attempt to back any of it up. They tell you to read a report (page one), and then nothing until page 13, (and that's just their own junk!) They have a reference list at the back but who knows where they got what? This wouldn't pass a high school class assignment!
For the love of Peter Murphy. This is poop on a stick dressed up to look like a proper paper. It's not remotely a serious paper. Don't be fooled. It's crap, top to bottom, crap. Laughable.
If you want to defend any of it, do so. I'll roast you to a crisp.
Let me give you a sample:
This Fraser document claims (wiki summary): "treatment time from initial referral by a GP through consultation with a specialist to final treatment, across all specialties and all procedures (emergency, non-urgent, and elective), averaged 17.7 weeks in 2005."
Where did they get this? Who knows. It has almost NO FOOTNOTES. It's a hackwork piece of junk made so rightwing nutbars who don't know the difference between sh-t and shinola will pass it around and think they have verified something.
What does the Canadian Institute for Health Information say about the above? Or rather, I should say, what do they SHOW? Well, you can read it all here:
http://www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/en/downloads ... imes_e.pdf
See, they actually went through and measured all of these stats, in great detail, in every province, for many categories. Each page is filled with footnotes backing up their claims, and showing the Fraser think tank numbers on wait times are complete garbage.
You want to defend your article? Pick your best cherries, and bring it on.
How about this one. Skinner claims the "...percentage of the population that was “effectively” uninsured for non-emergency, necessary medical services in 2007 was not that different in the United States and Canada: 7.9 percent in the United States compared to at least 6 percent in Canada."
Do you believe that? Do you know how insane you have to be to believe that?
Libertarian insane.
D.
***
Bigd: "Sorry that you are too dense to understand the difference between incomes and how they are taxed.">>
DAR
Sorry that you don't have an argument and have to resort to calling me dense instead. Putting incomes in different boxes is a ruse which allow the rich to avoid paying tax, as Mr. Buffet is honest enough to admit.
Bigd: The rich are not getting a lower rate.>>
DAR
If 17.7% is lower than 30%, and I dare say it is, then the rich are getting a lower rate. As Buffet correctly said.
Bigd: The rate on unearned income is the same for everyone.>>
DAR
That's nice. Who benefits from this ruse of calling vast amounts of wealth creation "unearned?" The rich, as Buffet said. As a link I think I already gave you pointed out:
"The rich can take advantage of tax loopholes, including one that allows those managers to pay the capital gains tax rate of 15 percent instead of the ordinary top income tax rate of 35 percent."
And note, even St. Reagan knew this:
"Back in 1986, a turning point in the federal tax reform debate came when President Ronald Reagan realized (with a little help from Donald Regan) how absurd it was that he should pay a lower income tax rate than his secretary. The subsequently-enacted 1986 Tax Reform Act got rid of special tax breaks for capital gains that were helping to make this possible, and brought our federal income tax system back where it should be: taxing wages and capital gains at exactly the same rate.
Twenty years later, the capital gains tax breaks are back with a vengeance-- the top tax rate on capital gains is 15 percent, less than half the 35 percent top rate on regular income-- and Berkshire Hathaway chairman Warren Buffett is ringing the same bell:
Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent."
<a href="http://www.ctj.org/blog/2007/06/buffett ... l">Link</a>.
Bigd: "The rate on earned income is progressive and he pays a higher rate on his earned income.">>
DAR
That's nice. You can put the fruit in whichever basket you like (earned or unearned) but at the end of the day, Mr. Buffet made $46 million and paid 17.7% tax on it. His secretary made $60k and paid 30% tax on it. That's not fair. A monkey can see that's not fair. Mr. Buffet agrees. It should be the other way around. If the rates were reversed, Mr. Buffet would then still have kept $32 million that year and his secretary would have kept $49k instead of $42k. But maybe that wouldn't be fair either. Maybe the 15% needs to come up and/or the 30% come down. How can it be fair to have the poorer working stiff paying at nearly twice the rate? How can your conscience and sense of fairness be so dull?
People aren't born with this inherent lack of ability to understand fairness. I think this kind of warped sense of fairness you have developed has to be indoctrinated over time. You have to work at it.
BIGD: Buffet wants the tax rates increased because they will not hurt him.>>
DAR
You don't know that. He is pointing out an obvious inequity. He is OBVIOUSLY pointing to a remedy which would involve either lowering the rate paid by those like his staff member, or raising his.
D.
***
(quote) “Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science,..."
Bigd: Funny, you change the name to Al Gore and change publishing this book to making this movie and the result would be true.>>
DAR
No it wouldn't be true. Gore's book and movie are entirely based on the solid, peer-reviewed, science done by experts.
As referenced above, Plimer "has not published scientific papers on climate change." (ibid) And yet he tries to overthrow the established science by writing a pop book for the populace. Gore hasn't published of course but he isn't going what Pilmer does, he is referencing the established science. That has a different standard, a different burden of proof.
Bigd: Freethinkers who are... truth detectors whose words can never be disputed.>>
DAR
I am sorry you so completely misunderstand. We thrive on having our words disputed. It's the fire our beliefs must pass through before we believe them. This is how science gets it's power to discern reality, it's how our justice system gets at the truth and it's how freethinkers and philosophers get rid of the junk. So dispute any and all of our "words." Just make sure you have your ducks in a row, your references hold up to examination and your arguments are sound. When you have the better argument I will change to your position so fast your head will spin.
Bigd: "In 15 years when the world is not melting you guys will look foolish.">>
DAR
Actually, some climatologist I have seen address this say we would need to see a fairly strong 20 year trend for there to be serious reservations about our present understanding.
The actual melting will probably be more for your great-great grandchildren. So who cares anyway!
D.
***
Bigd: "The newspaper article I linked to has his [Obama's] anti military screed.>>
DAR
I read it. Did you? I doubt it.
It was 1983 and he was giving a bland report on two student disarmament groups. There is no screed. There is nothing "anti-military" in it. It could have been written by a Sargent. You just don't like the content of what he reporting about.
D.
***
BLK: "nothing you or I say will change their minds">>
DAR
That's not true. I have changed my beliefs about many things and will in the future. If you have better reasons, better evidence, better arguments, I will change my beliefs to yours, regarding *anything.* No exceptions. I have NO sacred cows.
To a freethinker:
"Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger."
--Abbie Hoffman
It's hard for humans to change their beliefs. But like anything, the more you practice at it, the more you work to make sure your beliefs are in accord with reality, the easier it becomes.
D.
------------------
"What makes a free thinker is not his beliefs, but the way in which he holds them. If he holds them because his elders told him they were true when he was young, or if he holds them because if he did not he would be unhappy, his thought is not free; but if he holds them because, after careful thought, he finds a balance of evidence in their favor, then his thought is free,...”
--Bertrand Russell, "The Value of Free Thought"
***
BLK: "When Bush did it, you did not want to give him credit,">>
DAR
Absolutely false. When Bush talked in his State of the Union address, about his plan to give $15b over several years I remember telling a rightwing friend (in an email I may still have) I intended to watch this over the years and see if it happened. I entirely give Bush credit for this, that's why I said above "100%" above. Kudos to Bush! Good job!
D.
------------------
"In his State of the Union Address in January 2003, Bush outlined a five-year strategy for global emergency AIDS relief, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Bush announced $15 billion for this effort.[246] This program is believed by some to be a positive aspect of Bush's legacy across the political spectrum."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gw_bush
Bingo.
***
Bigd: Why a progressive system that is unfair?>>
DAR
A progressive system is fair. The rich should pay more.
Jesus understood this principle too:
Luke 21:1. "The He looked up ans saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, "Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all: for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings to God, but she our of her poverty has put in all the livelihood that she had."
Bigd: It is a system designed to be unfair and make those with wealth pay more.>>
DAR
Well then it fails, as has been shown. The secretary paid a higher percentage than the billionaire. That's not fair. That's the opposite of fair.
Bigd: How is it fair that the top 2% pay nearly 15 times that percent of all taxes?>>
DAR
That's progressive taxation, and fair. Time to get rid of the loopholes that let the rich escape and hide most of their money from this.
Bigd: Paying any taxes on unearned income is unfair.>>
DAR
Reagan disagreed. And you don't say why? Why should the rich have this huge tax loophole that lets them pay far less tax than the regular folks that scrape for their money? It's absurd.
Bigd: We need a capital gains tax of 0%.>>
DAR
Good point. Buffet needs to pay less taxes. The closer to zero the better! We can then shift those taxes over to the secretaries, nurses and piano technicians. And then if that isn't enough to pay our national bills, we can just borrow the rest from China. That makes a lot of sense. What is important is that Buffet and the fat cat billionaires get to keep even more of their money. Nearly all of it.
This is you're ideology not allowing you to think straight. You can't see it but others can.
Bigd: There is no inequity when like incomes are compared.>>
DAR
Thanks for making my point. When you compare secretaries and working stiffs, they get hosed a similar amount. When you compare millionaires and billionaires, they escape from paying vast amounts of taxes in a similar manner in relation to each other.
The problem is, as Buffet has outlined. When you compare the ultra rich (like him) and his staff, he pays a MUCH lower rate on the money he makes.
That's wrong. The rich should pay a higher rate.
D.
-------------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." --John Kenneth Galbraith
***
I like RFID and think it will greatly improve productivity. There are some security concerns but these shouldn't be too big of a deal.
As to tracking us, for several years now all cell phones have GPS tracking in them. It can't be turned off as long as the phone has power. So they already know where you and your phone are, at all times, within about 20 feet.
I haven't found it to be a problem.
D.
***
Bigd: "Continuing to say that Buffet paid less does not make it true.">>
DAR
I didn't say he "paid less" because he didn't pay less. I said he paid a lower rate. Which is true. 17.7% is a lower rate than 30%. The rich shouldn't pay a lower rate.
Bigd: Compare only his earned income to hers.">>
DAR
Haven't you tired of your little games now that they've been exposed? The rich shouldn't pay a much lower rate than the middle class. That's backwards.
Bigd: Besides, why shouldn’t Buffet,... not be able to keep the money he made.>>
DAR
Our nation has bills to pay. Wars to pay for. Interest to pay on the debt incurred to pay for those wars. When a person makes $46 million in a year, they can afford to pay the same rate as a middle class person. They can, and should in fact pay a higher rate than the middle class person. So says Mr. Buffet (he should know). So says every clear thinking person. So says John McCain. Here is how he explained it once to a little girl in a Town Hall meeting:
***
Audience member: "Why is it that someone like my father who goes to school for 13 years gets penalized in a huge tax bracket because he's a doctor."
McCain: "I think it's to some degree because we feel obviously that wealthy people can afford more."
Audience member: "Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism?"
McCain: "Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."
***
John McCain gets it.
Bigd: "And do you really think tax laws will be rewritten to disfavor the rich when many in Congress are rich?>>
DAR
Yes. It's happened many times before.
Bigd; A flat tax that we all pay on all income.>>
DAR
Flat taxes are very unprogressive and depending on how you jigger them usually hit the poor and middle even more. This is why the rich favor them. They are the only ones who talk about this. This is not by accident. If you change the system so the rich can pay less, which flat tax does, more money is going to have to come from the not rich. That's dumb.
Bigd: That will allow us all to pay our fair share.">>
DAR
"Fair share" begs the question. You have provided no good reason, because there is no good reason, for why Buffet should be paying a lower rate than his secretary who made 1/766th of the amount he did.
Bigd: Jesus [said]... only that hers meant more because she had less to give and still did so.>>
DAR
Right. Exact same principle. The secretary pays less but is credited more per dollar because the sacrifice for her is greater. We adjust for this principle today by charging the rich a higher rate. Thus the perversion of actually charging the rich a *lower* rate. It's ridiculous.
Bigd: Those who enjoy the benefits from government should pay for them."
DAR
And those who enjoy the benefits from our system to the degree they become exceedingly wealthy should pay for these benefits at a higher rate.
D.
***
Bigd: "(some of which are taken from thermometers near heat sources)">>
DAR
Thanks for mentioning this. This is the GW skeptic claim of:
"Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island Effect"
You can read a good response to this here: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2 ... island.php
No doubt you have heard of these things but perhaps hadn't had the opportunity to hear a proper response. Keep them coming. I'll respond to them as time allows.
D.
***
Bigd: ["Sargent"?]
DAR
I misspelled it. A Sergeant, "a noncommissioned army officer of a rank above that of corporal." Someone, anyone, in the military. If anyone should be against war, and avoiding it if possible and less than flippant about going to war, it should be people in the military. This is why it is best to keep the chicken hawks out of leadership. They don't pay the price for an unnecessary war and they don't understand it.
The importance of avoiding war, if possible, is even more clear in a nuclear war which was the focus of these two student groups Obama was writing his bland article about *in 1983.*
If you have an example of Obama giving an "anti-military screed" in this article, cite it. You don't do this because it isn't there. You probably didn't even read it.
D.
***
Bigd: "The insurance companies do have competition, against each other.">>
DAR
Many states have very little competition. Some states have companies with 70% of the market locked up. And they are for profit and make a killing.
We also, and perhaps more importantly, don't have much competition in health care delivery. When I had surgery on my neck (2 inch by 1 inch section around melanoma mole) they wouldn't even tell me the price before surgery. When you can't get a quote, there is no "shopping around."
Plus, we have perverse incentives to waste and drive up costs. Note:
"...high-quality, low-cost care is not financially rewarding. Indeed, the opposite is true. Hospitals and doctors can make more money providing inefficient, mediocre care, explains Goodman.
In a normal market, entrepreneurs in search of profit would solve this problem by repackaging and repricing their services in order to make customer-pleasing adjustments. Yet in health care, contracts and prices are imposed by large impersonal bureaucracies. The individual physician has virtually no opportunity to offer a different bundle of services for a different price. As a result, very little entrepreneurship is possible, says Goodman.
Source: John C. Goodman, "Perverse Incentives in Health Care," Wall Street Journal, April 5, 2007.
***
With health care in the US, the incentive is largely profit and greed. Perhaps the most perverse incentive of all.
D.
***
BLK: You see, Darrel? Victoria provides some proof,>>
DAR
I explained, specifically, the problems with the article (which took her 20 secs to google, and me half an hour to research). You apparently don't have a high threshold for "proof."
BLK: "...and you immediately dismiss this->>
DAR
I didn't immediately dismiss this. I read the report (PDF) the article was based on and researched the author and the group that put it together. I wonder if she even read the article.
BLK: Canada has fewer Libertarians, because they’ve invested so much of their lives into believing this socialist pap...>>
DAR
I don't mind libertarians actually. I agree with them on a lot of things. Someone even floated my name once to run for the party here in Arkansas but I wasn't a citizen at the time.
I think they provide a useful counterpoint at times. But they are nutty, and you can't take the ideologues too seriously. And I don't think they are going anywhere as a viable party. Fringe.
BLK:
According to Russell, then I too think free- because my beliefs are grounded in hard won experience and the examination of human nature.>>
DAR
Everybody wants to be a freethinker. Even the most religiously devoted people come up to our booth and tell us how they are freethinkers. Then we ask them if they base their beliefs upon faith, authority and established belief. And of course they do. That's not what freethinking is. It's the opposite of that.
BLK: My beliefs in God are based on my faith,>>
DAR
There is nothing more antithetical to freethinking than basing your beliefs upon "faith." Here is a quote about this I [url=viewtopic.php?p=19526#p19526">just posted for you[/url]. Take a moment to read it perhaps.
BLK: and the sheer improbability of everything coming together as it has, by accident.>>
DAR
To have a good understanding of this "improbability" it would be best if you had a very good understanding of science, physics, biology and an intimate knowledge of many other aspects of the world around you. There are people who spend a lifetime gaining such a depth of knowledge. They *overwhelmingly* agree with me. See below.
D.
------------------
Leading Scientists Reject God Belief
"The July 1998 "Nature" reports its new survey this year finding that 93% of what it categorizes as "great" scientists do not believe in a god.
The 1998 study follows up on the landmark 1914 survey by U.S. psychologist James H. Leuba,... When Leuba repeated his survey some twenty years later, he found that these percentages had increased to 67% and 85%, respectively.
Nature replicated Leuba's initial 1914 study in 1996, reporting little change,... This year, it replicated the second prong of Leuba's study, studying "greater" scientists (criterion: membership in the National Academy of Sciences). Its survey found "near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. . .
Specifically Nature found only 7% of greater" scientists expressed belief in a personal god, compared to 27.7% in 1914 and 15% in 1933,..."
***
BLK: "the sheer improbability of everything coming together as it has, by accident.>>
DAR
Getting order/design out of chaos/disorder isn't the same as "accident." Snowflakes come in an infinite variety of "designs" but we don't look at one and say: "oh, look what happened by accident." There are natural mechanisms and processes that create such things and there is no need to give any credit to any God's.
As to the "improbability" you can't calculate that with regard to universes because we don't know how many there are, or how many attempts there have been. We have only one.
But aside from that, in response to this question do we throw up our hands and just say "a supernatural being did it by magic?" Or do we say "we don't know" while searching for actual explanations? I say this because, saying a God did it, by magic, is no explanation at all. In fact, it just adds another mystery and an even bigger one! Because this "God" is certainly more complex and mysterious than his supposed creation.
Appealing to "faith" and "Gods" are always an intellectual cop-out. Faith is believing something without good reasons, and saying you have faith a God "did it" just creates adds to the mystery, without providing any good reasons.
D.
-------------------
"He is perfectly certain that there can be no design without a designer, and he is, equally certain that there can be a designer who was not designed. The absurdity becomes so great that it takes the place of a demonstration. He takes it for granted that matter was created and that its creator was not." --Ingersoll, Why I Am An Agnostic
***
Blk: "But you go right on with your certainty">>
DAR
When did I say I was certain? There is nothing wrong with saying you don't know. In fact, it is more honest than saying you do know, when you can't know.
D.
----------------
"If I have an empty bucket, and it "doesn't have anything" in it, that's not equivalent to saying it "doesn't have water" in it. Furthermore, if you claim to have a bucket of water, but offer me no proof, I don't have a "belief" that your bucket is empty. It could have milk in it, or syrup, or corn, or cow patties. I don't have any "belief" in any of those possibilities, but since I have no evidence of them either, I'm not going to
claim I know whether your bucket is empty or full, nor knowledge of its content IF there are any. I'm just waiting for you to back up your claim, and the more you argue that I should take it on "faith," the more outlandish your claim as to the contents, the more suspicious I am of your claim. If you're a person who has never had more than $10 in your pocket at a given time, and
you tell me your bucket contains ten billion in cash, I'm going to be REAL skeptical.
Religion claims it has infinite cash in its bucket, but it refuses to show me
a dime. In fact, it usually asks to borrow MY dime, and says I'll get paid back after I'm dead! Yeah, right! --Brent Yaciw
*********
HEALTH CARE NOTES: "Americans are dissatisfied with the U.S. health care system and 82 percent think it should be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt, according to a new survey released today by The Commonwealth Fund."
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content ... rhaul.aspx
Notes:
"The United States, for example, has reduced the number of preventable deaths for people under the age of 75 to 110 deaths for every 100,000 people, compared with 115 deaths five years earlier, but other countries have made greater strides. As a result, the United States now ranks last in preventable mortality, just below Ireland and Portugal, according to the Commonwealth Fund’s analysis of World Health Organization data. The leader by that measure is France, followed by Japan and Australia."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/busin ... .html?_r=1
******
NOTES: "Americans are dissatisfied with the U.S. health care system and 82 percent think it should be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt, according to a new survey released today by The Commonwealth Fund."
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content ... rhaul.aspx
I have lacked time to kick much Doggy butt lately. Here is a bunch more from a few weeks ago:
***************
JULY 9-12
***
BLK: "His approval rating country wide is the lowest it has been at 56%. His supporters will say that this is a good number, and it is,...>>
DAR
Of course Obama's extremely high numbers will go down. Considering the house is still on fire from the fire Bush set, and the hopes some have that it will quickly be put out (it won't), it's amazing he's even near 60% at all.
Here are the last ten mainstream polls of his Job Approval.
Quinnipiac U. 57% (6/23-29/09)
CNN/ORC 61% (6/26-28/09)
ABC/Washington Post 65% (6/18-21/09)
CBS/New York Times 63% (6/12-16/09)
NBC/Wall St. Journal 56% (6/12-15/09)
Pew 61% (6/10-14/09)
FOX/OD RV 62% (6/9-10/09)
Ipsos/McClatchy 64% (6/4-8/09)
Diageo/Hotline 65% (6/4-7/09)
Marist RV 56% (6/1-3/09)
Average = 61.9%
D.
***
Bigd: "Darrel, care to prove Bush did not show up for [National Guard] drill?">>
DAR
Sure. I didn't know anyone even denied that. I have found Cecil Adam's "The Straight Dope" to be a very dependable source over the years. He gives a nice short account of the standard understanding of this. Read it here:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... onal-guard
D.
***
BIGD: "Can’t thank Bush for all the dead.">>
DAR
I think you're right. I overstated that a bit. The original offensive in Afghanistan had strong bipartisan support. The country, the world, was united.
Unfortunately, it wasn't followed up properly because of the focus on Iraq. And then, with the fiasco in Irag, it all fell apart, including our support around the world.
BIGD: Obama said he would bring the troops immediately.>>
DAR
What? I must ask again if you are, as my wife likes to put it, "on glue." You really believe, that Obama said, he would "bring the troops immediately?" Really? My certainty level that your claim is false, is 100%.
Bigd: "That changed but he did not do what he said he would.">>
DAR
With the previous comment you just showed you have no knowledge of this subject. And of course, you back none of it up.
D.
***
BLK: Oh boy- did you [insult], [insult], [insult]. This lowers my estimate of you quite a bit.>>
DAR
I hope you weren't under the impression that I was interested in you having a certain "estimate" of me. What my goats think of me matters more (and they think I'm great btw).
So no rebuttal as usual eh? That's too bad as usual.
If you don't like the basic info at the Straight Dope. Try:
http://www.factcheck.org/democratic_gro ... ainst.html -- Factcheck
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature ... index.html --this more in depth article in Salon
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/12/132214/106 --KOS has a timeline nicely laid out here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._ ... ontroversy --Wiki has lots of well referenced information
Standard stuff, old news. You won't read it and you wouldn't understand it if you did. What matters is the Worst President Ever is gone.
D.
***
BIGD: "I can’t believe that people still believe this lie that is truly designed to deceive people.... One cannot compare earned income to unearned income when comparing tax rates.">>
DAR
Nice try but your attempt to make a distinction between "earned" and "unearned" income is quite beside the point and completely irrelevant to how much tax people pay, on the money they make.
That is the question. Your categories are irrelevant. What matters is "income" and tax paid, NOT the name of what particular box the IRS has us put a artificially created category of our income in. There are lots of other boxes too. Irrelevant.
Buffet makes an income of X, and it is taxed.
Buffet's staff members makes an income of X, and it is taxed.
Buffet's staff pays a HIGHER rate of tax, on their income, than he pays, on his income.
You don't even deny this, because you can't.
You can put all of your phony categories of "income" aside. What matters is, tax paid, on income. Buffet's right (and I trust him to know a wee bit more about such things than you). He and the billionaires like him, shouldn't be paying a lower rate of tax on the money they make than regular folks do. They should be paying a higher rate. A lot higher rate.
D.
***
BLK: "You claim that 1998 was an “anomalous” year, because it was unduly hot and what?- skewed results?>>
DAR
Correct. If you look at a 10 or e1even year period. Which no sensible person would do.
Imagine years, as waves, and they are coming into shore in slow motion.
A large one comes in (1998). Then ten more, but they are a little smaller than (1998) but still very large in relation to the last 130 waves (and perhaps 1,000). After the biggest one (1998) you say "hey, look, they are getting a little smaller now." Well, only in relation to that one big one (1998), but they are still near record setting waves (years). And the concern is they will be getting bigger (and the ocean level higher).
No one expects them to increase in perfect stair steps. GW warming is a statistical average increase around a slowly increasing mean.
BLK: Weather is anomalous in and of itself, because what climate does is change>>
DAR
Please don't confuse "weather" and "climate" as you just did. They are two very different things.
BLK: can you truly base your observations on a 11 to 12 year period with ANY accuracy?>>
DAR
No. That's why I complain when people do it. Bigdog denied doing this and I provided the exact quote he posted. See above.
D.
***
BIGD: "Yes, they want a government run system...>>
DAR
That reminds me. The Gallup poll question was even more ridiculous than I realized above. It asked about a "government-run system." Canada doesn't even have that! They have single payer. So this stupid poll not only didn't ask about a "public option" which was what we had been talking about, this stupid poll was asking people if they wanted a system, potentially, more socialized than Canada's! And they still got 39%. Amazing.
BIGD: it will drive many health insurance companies out of business.>>
DAR
We should be so lucky. We have what, about 18,000 dying a year because they have no insurance. We have tens of millions uninsured, and then we have this:
"McGuire's exit compensation from UnitedHealth, expected to be around $1.1 billion, would be the largest golden parachute in the history of corporate America."
Link
Our system finds it useful to compensate a single individual to the tune of over a billion dollars. The American people are getting ROYALLY shagged. How long are they going to put up with this?
Bigd: the polls you show have similarly loaded questions>>
DAR
Show this. Explain.
BIGD: or they over sample a particular group.>>
DAR
Flat wrong. They are all scientific, random polls. Each of the eight I have submitted. And they all show strong majorities [for a public option].
D.
***
Thanks for the questions Mike. I'll answer them all.
MK: How much longer are you going to blame Bush?>>
DAR
Quite a while. Years. Most of the bills for his $4-5 trillion war haven't even arrived yet. It's also normal for the first year to be considered a shared budget. Etc.
MK: Which party had control of Congress when the stock market and economy peaked and started downward?>>
DAR
The DOW was about 12.5k when the Demos got in. It later went up to 14k. Drawing a direct line of causation between ups and downs in the market and who has a slight majority in Congress, would be unwarranted and silly, of course. I would expect to see a good effect if a party had all power for six years. The GOP market sucked whatever angle you shake it from. If the market performed as it did under Clinton, the DOW would be at 33k now. It's not, and that's not Obama's fault or some Demo's in Congress who didn't even stand up to Bush.
MK: Who headed the House Financial Services Committee when the housing bubble broke?>>
DAR
The head of this committee doesn't get to run big things like bubbles and the idea that he could have caused one in many months, is absurd. It's a little more complicated than that.
Who ran on the "ownership society?" Your Bush, and he had his congress too. But the seeds were planted before that. Nicely explained <a href="http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/misce ... x">here</a>. Phil Gramm planted these seeds.
MK: Which direction is the economy going now?>>
DAR
Too vague. Sideways.
MK: Which direction is the unemployment rate going now?>>
DAR
This lagging indicator is still going bad and probably will for some time. Obama has great gifts, but he can't walk on water (no one can).
MK: And where did Obama say it would peak?>>
DAR
He didn't. Read the report, read the footnotes. I have. Here are the qualifiers in the footnotes (thanks to Bigd):
***
"Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action."
And in the conclusion:
"This study has sought to investigate the likely job creation effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan currently under consideration. As emphasized at many points in the analysis, there is substantial uncertainty around all of our estimates. Nevertheless, we believe they can provide useful guidance as we go forward."
Also:
"These estimates, like the aggregate ones, are subject to substantial margins of error. One additional source of uncertainty concerns the impact of the state fiscal relief."
MK: How would you rate the first stimulus package?>>
DAR
Expensive.
MK: Do we need a second?
DAR
Probably.
MK: What about a third?>>
DAR
I hope not.
MK: And how do you think we will pay for them?>>
DAR
By spending money we don't have. That's how we got out of the ditch the last time the GOP did this to us in Great Depression 1.0.
MK: When do you think all this stimulus will get the economy going again?>>
DAR
Don't know, and don't even know how much credit the stimulus would deserve. Some of it's placebo.
MK: Why don’t the liberal left admit they want a socialist country?>>
DAR
Because they don't. Best to avoid the word "socialist" because of it's vagueness and commie baggage. The right uses it as an epithet, constantly. Some people want more collectivism, some want less. This doesn't make them socialist. One could easily argue that we are up to our eyeballs in "socialism" now and that this has made America great. Let me know if you would like a long list of examples.
MK: Why don’t you?>>
DAR
Because I don't want a socialist country.
MK: Can’t you guys say it out loud?>>
DAR
People shouldn't say things out loud that aren't true.
MK: And, oh yeah, how much longer are you going to blame Bush?>>
DAR
A very long time.
D.
***
VIC: Dar that letter does not pertain to the same briefing that Nancy Pelosi lied about.>>
DAR
That letter refers to the CIA lying to Congress, which confirms Pelosi's claim.
Nancy's claim with regard to her specific briefings cannot be shown to be true or false because they weren't allowed to take notes.
VID: "What a circus!!!!">>
DAR
Actually, the circus just left. Now we are cleaning up. There were a lot of elephants. They left a lot of poop.
D.
***
BLK: "my spell checker goes nuts when I try to put free and thinker together>>
DAR
My spell checker doesn't. Lot's of freethinkers aren't atheists.
BLK: "made-up words that will make it into the dictionary">>
DAR
Will make it? Blake should read a little about his nation's history and get up to speed. This might be a start:
<url=http://www.amazon.com/Freethinkers-Amer ... 228&sr=8-1]Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism[/url].
The word "freethinker" would have been in the dictionary back when they invented dictionaries.
D.
-----------------
Short version:
freethinkers
Related: Philosophy
"Those who arrive at conclusions, particularly in questions of religion, by employing the rules of reason while rejecting supernatural authority or ecclesiastical tradition. The freethinkers believe that independence of thought from such authority leads all men to essentially identical conclusions concerning morality and religion. The name came into general use in the 18th cent. after the publication (1713) of Anthony Collins's Discourse of Freethinking Occasioned by the Rise and Growth of a Sect Called Freethinkers. The movement took different forms in different countries. In England it was intimately connected with deism but did not break completely with traditional Christianity. It took a more radical form in France. Voltaire renounced all connection with Christianity, and the Encyclopedists broke with religion altogether. Freethinking also has an important social side and influenced the philosophies of the Freemasons and, in France, the Culte de
l'Être Suprême. In the United States the organizations established to further freethinking include the American Rationalist Association, the American Secular Union, and the Freethinkers of America. The International Order for Ethics and Culture, organized at Bern in 1908, is designed to investigate the ethical factors in society without theological or metaphysical bias."
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/f1/freethin.asp --Columbia Encyclopedia
***
BLK: "Salon, Kos, Wiki? Is that ALL you read?">>
DAR
It's all standard information Blake. It's not even controversial. Would you like a dozen more references (to add to the five I gave) to ignore, not read and dismiss with a hand wave?
How are you going to get better if you won't take your medicine?
D.
***
MIKE: The Clinton stock market... was a direct result of the Y2K problem.>>
DAR
You think the Y2K problem made the stock market go up 330%? That's new one. Did you make that up yourself?
The total, GLOBAL estimated cost of preparing for Y2K was about $300 billion. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/586938.stm
The US may get a third of that. I nice stimulus for sure, but hardly going to add the trillions of net gain in stock value we enjoyed during the 90's.
Extra point for creative thinking!
D.
***
Bigd: "Buffet pays the same rate on his unearned income as his employees pay on their unearned income.">>
DAR
You're playing the same game of trying to hide income in different boxes for the purpose of avoiding addressing it.
Hey, that's the same game the rich have gotten away with for the purpose of avoiding pay taxes on that money! Nifty.
Bottomline: Mr. Buffet pays a far lower rate on what he made, than his staff does on what they made. Nearly half in fact. That's not right.
I'll let Mr. Buffet respond:
***
"Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.
Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation."
TimesUKonline
***
Bigd: "as much as 16.1 million dollars will go to, what else, the salt marsh rodent.>>
DAR
What your source actually said:
"...as much as $16.1 million from the stimulus program is going to save the San Francisco Bay Area habitat of, AMONG OTHER THINGS, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse."
So even your article isn't clear that the $16.1m is going for the endangered mouse (even if the money were going for the mouse, now debunked by Randy).
The Washington Times is probably still stinging from getting caught with their pants down the last time they were dishonest about this. Scientific American has a good overview:
Salt marsh mouse: An endangered species becomes a stimulus scapegoat.
Note: "...thanks to the Endangered Species Act, the government has a legal requirement to help it."
It's good to follow the law isn't it Bigd?
Our antibiotics are failing. Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) now causes 19,000 deaths every year in the US, this is more than HIV/AIDS (CDC 2007). I was reading about a important and powerful new antibiotic we've made by using a little critter that lives in the deep sea. From my July Scientific American, pg. 49:
"A powerful new antibiotic called abyssomicin, is made by Verrucosispora,... a bacterium that lives in the Sea of Japan at a depth of nearly 300 meters.
My point? The idea that we have the right to stomp around and willfully terminate species (make extinct) that have existed for 100's of millions of years is not only extreme arrogance and stupidity, it's also not in our own self-interest.
As to the cost. If we go with the 16m, over the last several years, (not counting future costs) that's about what Bush was blowing each and every hour in Iraq.
D.
***
BLK: "can’t get Bush out of their head, and that will be their downfall...">>
DAR
Read it and weep:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24795.html "Bashing George W. Bush still politically potent"
People don't have THAT short of a memory. You're going to be be wearing this mill stone around your neck for quite a while. Smile, it looks good on you.
D.
***
DAR
Filled with howlers, all debunked before. You don't care about truth, you don't care about accuracy, and you don't learn. This is a bad combination.
Just one, then I need to do something useful.
BLK: "The big problem is that a lot of the earners who actually make $350,000 and more are small businesses">>
DAR
Notice the word "make."
BLK: If you gross, as a company, $350,000- well, some of that money goes to...[expenses]>>
DAR
If you gross 350k, you are not "making" 350k.
BLK: "...the owners of a small business may only actually make 20- 30% of the gross,...>>
DAR
Or less.
BLK: "...and yet his taxes are based on the gross amount. This is not right."
DAR
No, it isn't (factually) right.
One just shakes their head. I can't imagine anyone taking your writings seriously at this point. And that's unfortunate. So on to something better.
D.
----------------------
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of
Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." --Robert Wilensky
***
DAR
Blake, it's important to teach kindergartners age appropriate sex ed. They need to know that if a republican leader comes around and touches them "there," they need to run away and go tell a democrat quick so the republican can be .
D.
***
DAR
Oh, just one other little bit. Not too serious really. I saw this picture the other day in my science magazine and it instantly made me think of how, like the adult human in the background, I try to assist you and Bigd. On the left, Bigd, more distinguished and intelligent (look at the wisdom in those eye). After getting to know you better, Blake, I see you sort of as the [url=http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm41/Darrelxxx/Meandthemonkeys.jpg]little fellow in the center.
Lots of sound and fury. Not so much significance!
D.
**
BIGD: "I’ll let this guy explain it to you.">>
DAR
All song and dance that accomplishes nothing and none of it addresses the simple, undeniable, fact, of Warren Buffet's claim.
Buffet made $46 million in one year and paid a tax of 17.7% on it.
His secretary made $60,000, and paid a tax of 30% on it.
Your fellow wrote a 2,098 word article futilely trying everything he could to obfuscate this simple fact that even a child can understand.
Your article says:
"Capital gains are taxed at 15% versus income from your job that is taxed at 25% to 40%. So Buffett was comparing completely different tax rates. He was comparing apples to oranges."
DAR
Well that is the point isn't it? All this is just as irrelevant as when you copied this argument from this guy the first time. You can call these income categories apples or you can call them oranges. It doesn't matter because in the end what we are talking about is "fruit" (making money). People making "fruit" and paying some of that "fruit" to the government.
Time to stop letting the rich get away with paying *a lower rate* on their fruit, no matter whether they are paid in apples, oranges, or Blake's favorite: bananas!
D.
***
BLK: It wouldn’t matter what I said, you’d take the opposite side.>>
DAR
That's not true. When you are right I will agree with you and back you up. And you will appreciate it when I do because backing things up is a bit of a specialty of mine. Unfortunately, I haven't had much opportunity to back you up very often. I'll try harder.
BLK: These are facts, just not convenient facts for you- especially about Canada->>
DAR
Canadians are quite satisfied with their health care but forget them, use any other similar peer country. You accuse me of bias but I am not patriotic, I am interested in pragmatic, utilitarian, results for everyone.
An anecdote from yesterday:
My wife has a slightly suspicious mole on her leg. She is thinking of getting it looked at, i.e. tested. She is hesitating because she hasn't been able to get insurance yet (non-citizen) but now can (just got green card). If she even goes to get this tested (negative or not), this may effect her ability to get insurance (cancer test on record). She has a friend this happened to on a cancer test that was in fact, negative.
This country, is, insane.
People who defend this insanity are cult members who are so wedded to ideology they can't think straight.
BLK: I can understand your touchiness- having relatives (distant) in Montreal,>>
DAR
Not sure which orifice you pulled that one out of but I have a good idea. I don't have any relatives in Montreal nor do I know anyone there.
Now let's review. A couple questions for you Blake. Please answer them. From an extensive international poll by Gallup I have referenced before:
"One-fourth of American respondents are either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with "the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation," (6% very satisfied and 19% somewhat satisfied)."
Dar: That's 25% satisfied, total.
"This level of satisfaction is significantly lower than in Canada, where 57% are satisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, including 16% who are very satisfied."
Dar: That's 73% satisfied, total.
Question for Blake. Which country is (far) more satisfied with the availability and affordability of healthcare?
Next:
"44% of Americans are very dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, and nearly three-fourths (72%) are either somewhat or very dissatisfied."
Dar: That's 72% dissatisfied. The number for Canada is 17%, the number for Great Britain is 25%.
Question for Blake: how many times greater is the US dissatisfaction than the Canadian dissatisfaction? (hint: divide 72 by 17. You should get 4.2). 4.2x greater dissatisfaction? That's an extraordinary number!
Next:
On "the quality of medical care [the countries] are not overly different -- 48% of Americans, 52% of Canadians, and 42% of Britons say they are satisfied."
Question: Which country has the highest satisfaction with the "quality of medical care?"
Conclusion: "72% of Americans say they are dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, and 50% are dissatisfied with the quality of medical care..."
Are those good numbers Blake? Are they better than Canada's numbers?
Source:
Healthcare System Ratings: U.S., Great Britain, Canada
***
BLK: "now we’re giving money to Africa?">>
DAR
Actually, you know who gave a lot of money to Africa?
GW Bush.
I think he had the goal of $15 billion but not sure he made it.
It's one of the few things he is nearly universally given credit and praise for (and I agree 100%).
Except... by you perhaps?
That's rather ironic isn't it.
D.
***
[Pilmer anti-global warming material]
DAR
Pilmer's from the same cast of clowns I have been roasting for years. He's a quacky Australian on the dole of a Canadian rightwing mining group called "Natural Resource Stewardship Project" (Canada has more oil than Saudia Arabia, this is why GW denial pops up there more often than it normally would).
Some standard roast:
***
Plimer also states that El Niño is caused by earthquakes and volcanic activity at the mid-ocean ridges.[8] This contrasts with the view held by the meteorological and oceanographic communities, which is that El Niño arises from dynamical interactions between the atmosphere and ocean.[9]
Plimer's book has been criticised by numerous mainstream scientists.[10][11]
University of Adelaide climate change Professor Barry Brook stated Plimer has not published scientific papers on climate change.[12] "Heaven & Earth" was reviewed in The Australian newspaper by Michael Ashley, Professor of astrophysics at the University of New South Wales, who says that if Plimer could actually demonstrate that the various lines of scientific research were "fundamentally flawed, then it would rank as one of the greatest discoveries of the century and would almost certainly earn him a Nobel prize".
Ashley's review finishes by suggesting:
"Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not "merely" atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics. Plimer's book deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken.".[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer
DAR
Von Daniken is the fellow who finds 500,000 year old spark plugs, etc.,.
D.
***
VIC: "Try this one and deny it.">>
DAR
You're funny. The Fraser Institute is a far right <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... ibertarian Think Tank</a>. (Global warming deniers of course). If you think libertarians aren't taken seriously in this country (and they are not, they could hold their conventions in a phone booth) they are laughed at in Canada. Positively, laughed at.
Better than read your article, I <a href="http://www.fraseramerica.org/Commerce.W ... .pdf">went and read the study it was based upon</a>. Same author. That's what he's referring to anyway.
It's a nice PDF. Looks shiny on fancy paper I bet. Trouble is, did you notice, almost no footnotes? I noticed that after the first two pages (of 22). Just in the first two pages, lot's and lot's of claims, lots of howlers, but not even an attempt to back any of it up. They tell you to read a report (page one), and then nothing until page 13, (and that's just their own junk!) They have a reference list at the back but who knows where they got what? This wouldn't pass a high school class assignment!
For the love of Peter Murphy. This is poop on a stick dressed up to look like a proper paper. It's not remotely a serious paper. Don't be fooled. It's crap, top to bottom, crap. Laughable.
If you want to defend any of it, do so. I'll roast you to a crisp.
Let me give you a sample:
This Fraser document claims (wiki summary): "treatment time from initial referral by a GP through consultation with a specialist to final treatment, across all specialties and all procedures (emergency, non-urgent, and elective), averaged 17.7 weeks in 2005."
Where did they get this? Who knows. It has almost NO FOOTNOTES. It's a hackwork piece of junk made so rightwing nutbars who don't know the difference between sh-t and shinola will pass it around and think they have verified something.
What does the Canadian Institute for Health Information say about the above? Or rather, I should say, what do they SHOW? Well, you can read it all here:
http://www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/en/downloads ... imes_e.pdf
See, they actually went through and measured all of these stats, in great detail, in every province, for many categories. Each page is filled with footnotes backing up their claims, and showing the Fraser think tank numbers on wait times are complete garbage.
You want to defend your article? Pick your best cherries, and bring it on.
How about this one. Skinner claims the "...percentage of the population that was “effectively” uninsured for non-emergency, necessary medical services in 2007 was not that different in the United States and Canada: 7.9 percent in the United States compared to at least 6 percent in Canada."
Do you believe that? Do you know how insane you have to be to believe that?
Libertarian insane.
D.
***
Bigd: "Sorry that you are too dense to understand the difference between incomes and how they are taxed.">>
DAR
Sorry that you don't have an argument and have to resort to calling me dense instead. Putting incomes in different boxes is a ruse which allow the rich to avoid paying tax, as Mr. Buffet is honest enough to admit.
Bigd: The rich are not getting a lower rate.>>
DAR
If 17.7% is lower than 30%, and I dare say it is, then the rich are getting a lower rate. As Buffet correctly said.
Bigd: The rate on unearned income is the same for everyone.>>
DAR
That's nice. Who benefits from this ruse of calling vast amounts of wealth creation "unearned?" The rich, as Buffet said. As a link I think I already gave you pointed out:
"The rich can take advantage of tax loopholes, including one that allows those managers to pay the capital gains tax rate of 15 percent instead of the ordinary top income tax rate of 35 percent."
And note, even St. Reagan knew this:
"Back in 1986, a turning point in the federal tax reform debate came when President Ronald Reagan realized (with a little help from Donald Regan) how absurd it was that he should pay a lower income tax rate than his secretary. The subsequently-enacted 1986 Tax Reform Act got rid of special tax breaks for capital gains that were helping to make this possible, and brought our federal income tax system back where it should be: taxing wages and capital gains at exactly the same rate.
Twenty years later, the capital gains tax breaks are back with a vengeance-- the top tax rate on capital gains is 15 percent, less than half the 35 percent top rate on regular income-- and Berkshire Hathaway chairman Warren Buffett is ringing the same bell:
Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent."
<a href="http://www.ctj.org/blog/2007/06/buffett ... l">Link</a>.
Bigd: "The rate on earned income is progressive and he pays a higher rate on his earned income.">>
DAR
That's nice. You can put the fruit in whichever basket you like (earned or unearned) but at the end of the day, Mr. Buffet made $46 million and paid 17.7% tax on it. His secretary made $60k and paid 30% tax on it. That's not fair. A monkey can see that's not fair. Mr. Buffet agrees. It should be the other way around. If the rates were reversed, Mr. Buffet would then still have kept $32 million that year and his secretary would have kept $49k instead of $42k. But maybe that wouldn't be fair either. Maybe the 15% needs to come up and/or the 30% come down. How can it be fair to have the poorer working stiff paying at nearly twice the rate? How can your conscience and sense of fairness be so dull?
People aren't born with this inherent lack of ability to understand fairness. I think this kind of warped sense of fairness you have developed has to be indoctrinated over time. You have to work at it.
BIGD: Buffet wants the tax rates increased because they will not hurt him.>>
DAR
You don't know that. He is pointing out an obvious inequity. He is OBVIOUSLY pointing to a remedy which would involve either lowering the rate paid by those like his staff member, or raising his.
D.
***
(quote) “Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science,..."
Bigd: Funny, you change the name to Al Gore and change publishing this book to making this movie and the result would be true.>>
DAR
No it wouldn't be true. Gore's book and movie are entirely based on the solid, peer-reviewed, science done by experts.
As referenced above, Plimer "has not published scientific papers on climate change." (ibid) And yet he tries to overthrow the established science by writing a pop book for the populace. Gore hasn't published of course but he isn't going what Pilmer does, he is referencing the established science. That has a different standard, a different burden of proof.
Bigd: Freethinkers who are... truth detectors whose words can never be disputed.>>
DAR
I am sorry you so completely misunderstand. We thrive on having our words disputed. It's the fire our beliefs must pass through before we believe them. This is how science gets it's power to discern reality, it's how our justice system gets at the truth and it's how freethinkers and philosophers get rid of the junk. So dispute any and all of our "words." Just make sure you have your ducks in a row, your references hold up to examination and your arguments are sound. When you have the better argument I will change to your position so fast your head will spin.
Bigd: "In 15 years when the world is not melting you guys will look foolish.">>
DAR
Actually, some climatologist I have seen address this say we would need to see a fairly strong 20 year trend for there to be serious reservations about our present understanding.
The actual melting will probably be more for your great-great grandchildren. So who cares anyway!
D.
***
Bigd: "The newspaper article I linked to has his [Obama's] anti military screed.>>
DAR
I read it. Did you? I doubt it.
It was 1983 and he was giving a bland report on two student disarmament groups. There is no screed. There is nothing "anti-military" in it. It could have been written by a Sargent. You just don't like the content of what he reporting about.
D.
***
BLK: "nothing you or I say will change their minds">>
DAR
That's not true. I have changed my beliefs about many things and will in the future. If you have better reasons, better evidence, better arguments, I will change my beliefs to yours, regarding *anything.* No exceptions. I have NO sacred cows.
To a freethinker:
"Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger."
--Abbie Hoffman
It's hard for humans to change their beliefs. But like anything, the more you practice at it, the more you work to make sure your beliefs are in accord with reality, the easier it becomes.
D.
------------------
"What makes a free thinker is not his beliefs, but the way in which he holds them. If he holds them because his elders told him they were true when he was young, or if he holds them because if he did not he would be unhappy, his thought is not free; but if he holds them because, after careful thought, he finds a balance of evidence in their favor, then his thought is free,...”
--Bertrand Russell, "The Value of Free Thought"
***
BLK: "When Bush did it, you did not want to give him credit,">>
DAR
Absolutely false. When Bush talked in his State of the Union address, about his plan to give $15b over several years I remember telling a rightwing friend (in an email I may still have) I intended to watch this over the years and see if it happened. I entirely give Bush credit for this, that's why I said above "100%" above. Kudos to Bush! Good job!
D.
------------------
"In his State of the Union Address in January 2003, Bush outlined a five-year strategy for global emergency AIDS relief, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Bush announced $15 billion for this effort.[246] This program is believed by some to be a positive aspect of Bush's legacy across the political spectrum."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gw_bush
Bingo.
***
Bigd: Why a progressive system that is unfair?>>
DAR
A progressive system is fair. The rich should pay more.
Jesus understood this principle too:
Luke 21:1. "The He looked up ans saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, "Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all: for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings to God, but she our of her poverty has put in all the livelihood that she had."
Bigd: It is a system designed to be unfair and make those with wealth pay more.>>
DAR
Well then it fails, as has been shown. The secretary paid a higher percentage than the billionaire. That's not fair. That's the opposite of fair.
Bigd: How is it fair that the top 2% pay nearly 15 times that percent of all taxes?>>
DAR
That's progressive taxation, and fair. Time to get rid of the loopholes that let the rich escape and hide most of their money from this.
Bigd: Paying any taxes on unearned income is unfair.>>
DAR
Reagan disagreed. And you don't say why? Why should the rich have this huge tax loophole that lets them pay far less tax than the regular folks that scrape for their money? It's absurd.
Bigd: We need a capital gains tax of 0%.>>
DAR
Good point. Buffet needs to pay less taxes. The closer to zero the better! We can then shift those taxes over to the secretaries, nurses and piano technicians. And then if that isn't enough to pay our national bills, we can just borrow the rest from China. That makes a lot of sense. What is important is that Buffet and the fat cat billionaires get to keep even more of their money. Nearly all of it.
This is you're ideology not allowing you to think straight. You can't see it but others can.
Bigd: There is no inequity when like incomes are compared.>>
DAR
Thanks for making my point. When you compare secretaries and working stiffs, they get hosed a similar amount. When you compare millionaires and billionaires, they escape from paying vast amounts of taxes in a similar manner in relation to each other.
The problem is, as Buffet has outlined. When you compare the ultra rich (like him) and his staff, he pays a MUCH lower rate on the money he makes.
That's wrong. The rich should pay a higher rate.
D.
-------------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." --John Kenneth Galbraith
***
I like RFID and think it will greatly improve productivity. There are some security concerns but these shouldn't be too big of a deal.
As to tracking us, for several years now all cell phones have GPS tracking in them. It can't be turned off as long as the phone has power. So they already know where you and your phone are, at all times, within about 20 feet.
I haven't found it to be a problem.
D.
***
Bigd: "Continuing to say that Buffet paid less does not make it true.">>
DAR
I didn't say he "paid less" because he didn't pay less. I said he paid a lower rate. Which is true. 17.7% is a lower rate than 30%. The rich shouldn't pay a lower rate.
Bigd: Compare only his earned income to hers.">>
DAR
Haven't you tired of your little games now that they've been exposed? The rich shouldn't pay a much lower rate than the middle class. That's backwards.
Bigd: Besides, why shouldn’t Buffet,... not be able to keep the money he made.>>
DAR
Our nation has bills to pay. Wars to pay for. Interest to pay on the debt incurred to pay for those wars. When a person makes $46 million in a year, they can afford to pay the same rate as a middle class person. They can, and should in fact pay a higher rate than the middle class person. So says Mr. Buffet (he should know). So says every clear thinking person. So says John McCain. Here is how he explained it once to a little girl in a Town Hall meeting:
***
Audience member: "Why is it that someone like my father who goes to school for 13 years gets penalized in a huge tax bracket because he's a doctor."
McCain: "I think it's to some degree because we feel obviously that wealthy people can afford more."
Audience member: "Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism?"
McCain: "Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."
***
John McCain gets it.
Bigd: "And do you really think tax laws will be rewritten to disfavor the rich when many in Congress are rich?>>
DAR
Yes. It's happened many times before.
Bigd; A flat tax that we all pay on all income.>>
DAR
Flat taxes are very unprogressive and depending on how you jigger them usually hit the poor and middle even more. This is why the rich favor them. They are the only ones who talk about this. This is not by accident. If you change the system so the rich can pay less, which flat tax does, more money is going to have to come from the not rich. That's dumb.
Bigd: That will allow us all to pay our fair share.">>
DAR
"Fair share" begs the question. You have provided no good reason, because there is no good reason, for why Buffet should be paying a lower rate than his secretary who made 1/766th of the amount he did.
Bigd: Jesus [said]... only that hers meant more because she had less to give and still did so.>>
DAR
Right. Exact same principle. The secretary pays less but is credited more per dollar because the sacrifice for her is greater. We adjust for this principle today by charging the rich a higher rate. Thus the perversion of actually charging the rich a *lower* rate. It's ridiculous.
Bigd: Those who enjoy the benefits from government should pay for them."
DAR
And those who enjoy the benefits from our system to the degree they become exceedingly wealthy should pay for these benefits at a higher rate.
D.
***
Bigd: "(some of which are taken from thermometers near heat sources)">>
DAR
Thanks for mentioning this. This is the GW skeptic claim of:
"Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island Effect"
You can read a good response to this here: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2 ... island.php
No doubt you have heard of these things but perhaps hadn't had the opportunity to hear a proper response. Keep them coming. I'll respond to them as time allows.
D.
***
Bigd: ["Sargent"?]
DAR
I misspelled it. A Sergeant, "a noncommissioned army officer of a rank above that of corporal." Someone, anyone, in the military. If anyone should be against war, and avoiding it if possible and less than flippant about going to war, it should be people in the military. This is why it is best to keep the chicken hawks out of leadership. They don't pay the price for an unnecessary war and they don't understand it.
The importance of avoiding war, if possible, is even more clear in a nuclear war which was the focus of these two student groups Obama was writing his bland article about *in 1983.*
If you have an example of Obama giving an "anti-military screed" in this article, cite it. You don't do this because it isn't there. You probably didn't even read it.
D.
***
Bigd: "The insurance companies do have competition, against each other.">>
DAR
Many states have very little competition. Some states have companies with 70% of the market locked up. And they are for profit and make a killing.
We also, and perhaps more importantly, don't have much competition in health care delivery. When I had surgery on my neck (2 inch by 1 inch section around melanoma mole) they wouldn't even tell me the price before surgery. When you can't get a quote, there is no "shopping around."
Plus, we have perverse incentives to waste and drive up costs. Note:
"...high-quality, low-cost care is not financially rewarding. Indeed, the opposite is true. Hospitals and doctors can make more money providing inefficient, mediocre care, explains Goodman.
In a normal market, entrepreneurs in search of profit would solve this problem by repackaging and repricing their services in order to make customer-pleasing adjustments. Yet in health care, contracts and prices are imposed by large impersonal bureaucracies. The individual physician has virtually no opportunity to offer a different bundle of services for a different price. As a result, very little entrepreneurship is possible, says Goodman.
Source: John C. Goodman, "Perverse Incentives in Health Care," Wall Street Journal, April 5, 2007.
***
With health care in the US, the incentive is largely profit and greed. Perhaps the most perverse incentive of all.
D.
***
BLK: You see, Darrel? Victoria provides some proof,>>
DAR
I explained, specifically, the problems with the article (which took her 20 secs to google, and me half an hour to research). You apparently don't have a high threshold for "proof."
BLK: "...and you immediately dismiss this->>
DAR
I didn't immediately dismiss this. I read the report (PDF) the article was based on and researched the author and the group that put it together. I wonder if she even read the article.
BLK: Canada has fewer Libertarians, because they’ve invested so much of their lives into believing this socialist pap...>>
DAR
I don't mind libertarians actually. I agree with them on a lot of things. Someone even floated my name once to run for the party here in Arkansas but I wasn't a citizen at the time.
I think they provide a useful counterpoint at times. But they are nutty, and you can't take the ideologues too seriously. And I don't think they are going anywhere as a viable party. Fringe.
BLK:
According to Russell, then I too think free- because my beliefs are grounded in hard won experience and the examination of human nature.>>
DAR
Everybody wants to be a freethinker. Even the most religiously devoted people come up to our booth and tell us how they are freethinkers. Then we ask them if they base their beliefs upon faith, authority and established belief. And of course they do. That's not what freethinking is. It's the opposite of that.
BLK: My beliefs in God are based on my faith,>>
DAR
There is nothing more antithetical to freethinking than basing your beliefs upon "faith." Here is a quote about this I [url=viewtopic.php?p=19526#p19526">just posted for you[/url]. Take a moment to read it perhaps.
BLK: and the sheer improbability of everything coming together as it has, by accident.>>
DAR
To have a good understanding of this "improbability" it would be best if you had a very good understanding of science, physics, biology and an intimate knowledge of many other aspects of the world around you. There are people who spend a lifetime gaining such a depth of knowledge. They *overwhelmingly* agree with me. See below.
D.
------------------
Leading Scientists Reject God Belief
"The July 1998 "Nature" reports its new survey this year finding that 93% of what it categorizes as "great" scientists do not believe in a god.
The 1998 study follows up on the landmark 1914 survey by U.S. psychologist James H. Leuba,... When Leuba repeated his survey some twenty years later, he found that these percentages had increased to 67% and 85%, respectively.
Nature replicated Leuba's initial 1914 study in 1996, reporting little change,... This year, it replicated the second prong of Leuba's study, studying "greater" scientists (criterion: membership in the National Academy of Sciences). Its survey found "near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. . .
Specifically Nature found only 7% of greater" scientists expressed belief in a personal god, compared to 27.7% in 1914 and 15% in 1933,..."
***
BLK: "the sheer improbability of everything coming together as it has, by accident.>>
DAR
Getting order/design out of chaos/disorder isn't the same as "accident." Snowflakes come in an infinite variety of "designs" but we don't look at one and say: "oh, look what happened by accident." There are natural mechanisms and processes that create such things and there is no need to give any credit to any God's.
As to the "improbability" you can't calculate that with regard to universes because we don't know how many there are, or how many attempts there have been. We have only one.
But aside from that, in response to this question do we throw up our hands and just say "a supernatural being did it by magic?" Or do we say "we don't know" while searching for actual explanations? I say this because, saying a God did it, by magic, is no explanation at all. In fact, it just adds another mystery and an even bigger one! Because this "God" is certainly more complex and mysterious than his supposed creation.
Appealing to "faith" and "Gods" are always an intellectual cop-out. Faith is believing something without good reasons, and saying you have faith a God "did it" just creates adds to the mystery, without providing any good reasons.
D.
-------------------
"He is perfectly certain that there can be no design without a designer, and he is, equally certain that there can be a designer who was not designed. The absurdity becomes so great that it takes the place of a demonstration. He takes it for granted that matter was created and that its creator was not." --Ingersoll, Why I Am An Agnostic
***
Blk: "But you go right on with your certainty">>
DAR
When did I say I was certain? There is nothing wrong with saying you don't know. In fact, it is more honest than saying you do know, when you can't know.
D.
----------------
"If I have an empty bucket, and it "doesn't have anything" in it, that's not equivalent to saying it "doesn't have water" in it. Furthermore, if you claim to have a bucket of water, but offer me no proof, I don't have a "belief" that your bucket is empty. It could have milk in it, or syrup, or corn, or cow patties. I don't have any "belief" in any of those possibilities, but since I have no evidence of them either, I'm not going to
claim I know whether your bucket is empty or full, nor knowledge of its content IF there are any. I'm just waiting for you to back up your claim, and the more you argue that I should take it on "faith," the more outlandish your claim as to the contents, the more suspicious I am of your claim. If you're a person who has never had more than $10 in your pocket at a given time, and
you tell me your bucket contains ten billion in cash, I'm going to be REAL skeptical.
Religion claims it has infinite cash in its bucket, but it refuses to show me
a dime. In fact, it usually asks to borrow MY dime, and says I'll get paid back after I'm dead! Yeah, right! --Brent Yaciw
*********
HEALTH CARE NOTES: "Americans are dissatisfied with the U.S. health care system and 82 percent think it should be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt, according to a new survey released today by The Commonwealth Fund."
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content ... rhaul.aspx
Notes:
"The United States, for example, has reduced the number of preventable deaths for people under the age of 75 to 110 deaths for every 100,000 people, compared with 115 deaths five years earlier, but other countries have made greater strides. As a result, the United States now ranks last in preventable mortality, just below Ireland and Portugal, according to the Commonwealth Fund’s analysis of World Health Organization data. The leader by that measure is France, followed by Japan and Australia."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/busin ... .html?_r=1
******
NOTES: "Americans are dissatisfied with the U.S. health care system and 82 percent think it should be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt, according to a new survey released today by The Commonwealth Fund."
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content ... rhaul.aspx
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - July)
JULY 18-24 2009
*************
Bigd: "Most people agree we need reform but that government is not the answer, despite the few flawed polls that came out before this monstrosity was unveiled.">>
DAR
I have given you eight scientific polls showing strong majorities supporting a public option. You have not provided a single one, asking this question, which shows otherwise.
D.
-----------------
"Now, we know there are those who will oppose reform no matter what," Obama said. "We know the same special interests and their agents in Congress will make the same old arguments and use the same scare tactics that have stopped reform before because they profit from this relentless escalation in health care costs."
***
Blk: "How’s Canada, D?">>
DAR
Superb. Rented scooters yesterday and scooted to <a href="http://www.explorevancouverisland.com/C ... m">Cordova Bay"</a> and had blueberries for lunch. Scooted to <a href="http://www.ila-chateau.com/sooke/pic01.jpg">Sooke</a> today.
Headlines in the paper the other day were about the government giving out <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb ... html">free crack pipes</a>.
I'll see if I can get you one. Couldn't hurt.
D.
***
DAR
Barbara, I would like to bet that you will be the first one to squawk when a private insurance company tells you that you cannot have a necessary test or that your elderly mother or father are denied the right to care, but left to die. If you think this won’t happen (or hasn't happened), then you really are stupid.
The reason this is more likely to happen with the private insurance company system (or to a person with no insurance), is because the purpose of a non-profit single payer system is to provide coverage to everyone. The purpose of the US system, is to maximize profits which it does most effectively by completely denying coverage to those who need it the most and by denying care to those who do have it. Different purpose, different outcome.
D.
***
Texas. The ONLY red state that's not on welfare.
D.
***
BLK: "I do not want a government pinhead telling ME how severe MY affliction is.>>
DAR
What you would have now, IF you could get insurance, is an insurance pinhead arguing with your doctor about "how severe" your affliction is. Canada doesn't have that. You figure out with your doctor what you need/want, and it's covered. Don't like you doctor, go to another, they are all "in network." If you doctor says you need it, you get it. And he sends the bill to the insurance company (there is only one) and they pay it.
Duke University, in the US, has a world class medical hospital with 900 beds. They also have 900 billing clerks. One per bed. And the insurance companies have 900 people (pin-heads) on the their end to negotiate with those billing clerks about how "severe" your affliction is. And the goal of those pin-heads is to maximize profits which they do by limiting coverage (just like they limit your by not even insuring you). It's their job, it's what they do.
Canada doesn't have that.
D.
-------------
"Wendell Potter, a former head of corporate communications for CIGNA who finally listened to his conscience, left behind the blood money, and started talking about the evil he was doing as a shill for the health care denial industry.
...Potter was the point man for CIGNA during various high-profile denials over the past few years, like the case of Nataline Sarkisyan, a 17-year-old who died because CIGNA refused to give her a liver transplant. Potter talks about what it was like helping cover for CIGNA as it killed this poor girl..."
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003022.html
***
BIRTHER ROAST
"The “Certification of Live Birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” doc**ent is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii."
SMRSTRAUSS
This is not true in two ways. First when Obama was born this provision was not allowed. Only births in Hawaii were registered in Hawaii in 1961, and Obamas’ birth was registered in Hawaii in 1961.
Second, even today the state of Hawaii does not allow any of its doc**ents to lie. So, when a child is born outside of Hawaii and his parents qualify as Hawaiian residents, the short-form birth certificate must say something like: “Hawaii birth certificate, location of birth: New Jersey (or wherever it was). Obama’s says that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.
Re: “The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only doc**ent that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.’
But Obama cannot show it. Hawaii sends out only the short-form certifications of live birth. Only the short-form certifications to everyone. http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20 ... _line.html.
So, unless Obama has a copy of the original birth certificate, saved from the time of birth by his parents, and not lost since then (and many of us do lose our original birth certificate), then all that he can show is what Hawaii sends, and Hawaii sends out only the short-form certification.
The doc**ent that Obama posted and showed to FactCheck and PoliFact was confirmed by the two officials of the state when they looked into Obama’s records and found an original birth certificate. (At the time Obama was born Hawaii did not allow foreign birth certificates to be filed.) And subsequently, the spokewoman for the department spoke to the Chicago Tribune and said that the statement by the two officials was proof of birth in Hawaii.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/polit ... n_for.html
***
Bigd: "Why is it you give examples like this CIGNA>>
DAR
Barbara referred to government denying care and causing a death, but she forgot to give an example. I thought I would gave her one from private insurance. There are lots more.
Bigd: "Does Duke have one billing clerk per bed>>
DAR
Yes. Unless this doctor from that hospital was lying to the senate. Note:
"The Senate Finance Committee has heard about the problem of overhead. On Nov. 19, Professor Uwe Reinhardt, who is also on the board of trustees of the 900-bed Duke University Hospital, used Duke to illustrate the problem: “We have 900 billing clerks at Duke. I’m not sure we have a nurse per (each) bed, but we have a billing clerk per bed…"
http://www.correntewire.com/merry_chris ... h_62_cents
Bigd: "...or doe they have 900 billing clerks because of the volume of business they do?"
DAR
The number of beds a hospital has is a normative measurement of the size of a hospital.
Bigd: "Anyone could assume that it is one clerk for each bed..."
DAR
900 beds, 900 billing clerks, equals approximately one clerk per bed.
Bigd: "...but the beds are used thousands of times per year..."
DAR
No, each bed is not used "thousands of times per year."
Bigd: "Duke attracts a total of more than 60,000 inpatient stays and 1.4 million outpatient visits annually.">>
DAR
You are mistaken. My stat refers to one hospital. If you read your stat more carefully you would have noticed that it refers to three hospitals and the entire medical university system which includes a multitude of out patient clinics, etc.,.
Bigd: "Divide that by 900 billing clerks and you get 1,622 patients per clerk.>>
DAR
And 1,622 patients per bed per year which is 4.4 per bed, per day. Please.
D.
***
BLK: "Canada has a Looooong waiting list,">>
DAR
Canada has some waits, for some elective procedures, in some areas. This is a funding issue that differs by province and area. If we have backlogs in the courts do we say, "well, this legal system doesn't work, it needs to go." Or do we say, "we need to hire more judges and build more court houses?" If we have more convicts than prisons do we say "this whole idea of jails needs to scrapped, it's just unworkable." Or do we say, "we need to spend more on prisons?"
BLK: "...and the government decides if you are worth it.">>
DAR
Actually, that's not true. But even if it were true (and it's not, your doctor decides what you need and he doesn't care because he doesn't pay for it), it would still be preferable to having a private, for profit corporation decide if you "are worth it." This is because they make more money if your "aren't worth it."
BLK: "Where’s the benefit for this, D?">>
DAR
There are several benefits. Nearly everyone's covered, lower cost, better outcomes, a more satisfied populace, near zero medical bankruptcies, nearly everyone's covered.
Why don't you list the benefits of the US system which doesn't cover or under covers tens of millions, costs more, has worse outcomes, has a more dissatisfied populace, causes about 5,700 medical bankruptcies a day and leaves tens of millions without coverage?
D.
***
BLK: "[the left] wouldn’t bother demonizing her [Palin] if she did not represent a threat to them.">>
DAR
The idea that Palin could represent a threat is not an idea I can take seriously. But I really do try because I know there are many, like you, who for some reason really believe this.
When has Palin ever been anything other than a gift that keeps on giving to her political opponents? She has a small and ardent following but at the same time has a group much larger that can't stand her. She is *unelectable* on the national level.
Here is the effect she had on the GOP ticket:
Independents:
More likely to support: 16%
Less likely: 32%
No diff: 50%
All voters:
More likely to support: 18%
Less likely to support: 24%
No difference: 56%
"...her selection only had a net positive effect on support for the Republican ticket among white evangelicals, with a net negative effect among white Catholics and Independents..."
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/ ... rizer.html
This is something to fear? No I don't think so.
D.
--------------
Paul Begala on Palin:
"Her statement was incoherent, bizarre and juvenile. The text, as posted on Gov. Palin's official website (here), uses 2,549 words and 18 exclamation points. Lincoln freed the slaves with 719 words and nary an exclamation; Mr. Jefferson declared our independence in 1,322 words and, again, no exclamation points. Nixon resigned the presidency in 1,796 words -- still no exclamation points. Gov. Palin capitalized words at random - whole words, like "TO," "HELP," and "AND," and the first letter of "Troops."
Gov. Palin's official announcement that she is resigning as chief executive of the great state of Alaska had all the depth and gravitas of a 13-year-old's review of the Jonas Brothers' album on Facebook. She even quoted her parents' refrigerator magnet. She put her son's name in quotations marks. Why? Who knows. She writes, "I promised efficiencies and effectiveness!?" Was she exclaiming or questioning? I get it: both!"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-bega ... 25633.html
***
Bigd: "The entire system is designed to move people away from private insurance and to government run health care.">>
DAR
Maybe the reason repubs aren't trusted on this is because they are so serially dishonest, as you are again, here. This is not "government run health care."
"Obama remains more trusted than Republicans in Congress to do a better job on healthcare reform, the poll showed, with 54 percent of respondents putting their faith in the U.S. leader versus 34 percent in favor of Republican lawmakers."
Reuters.
D.
***
[Obama won't protect from terrorists]
DAR
Let's check and see what normal people think about this:
"Who do you trust to do a better job handling the threat of terrorism — (Obama) or the (Republicans in Congress)?
Obama: 55%
Republicans in Congress: 34%
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... 62209.html
D.
***
BLK: "Canada can’t hire more Doctors,>>
DAR
Canada is hiring more doctors. The ratio has been going up.
BLK: because who wants the hassle of a broken system?>>
DAR
You have it upside down again. You want me to find a poll of what doctors think of the different systems? You will get smoked again, as usual. Support for single payer has been steadily rising among US doctors. Observe:
***
"...a poll published recently [2008] in the Annals of Internal Medicine showing that 59 percent of U.S. doctors support a "single payer" plan that essentially eliminates the central role of private insurers. Most industrial societies -- including nations as diverse as Taiwan, France, and Canada -- have adopted universal health systems that provide health care to all citizens and permit them free choice of their doctors and hospitals...
The new poll, conducted by Indiana University's Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research, shows a sharp 10 percent spike in the number of doctors supporting national insurance: 59 percent in 2007 compared to 49 percent five years earlier. This indicates that more physicians are eager for systematic changes..."
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?art ... ors_revolt
I am sure Canadian doctors would like some tweaks. I bet the percentage that want to switch to a US style system is tiny.
Regarding the above, it seems they are really tired of haggling with 1,300 insurance companies and being denied the ability to treat patients as they think they need just so a corporation can give a billion dollar golden parachute to a CEO (but I know that sort of thing is really important to you guys).
BLK: This is why most good Canadian Docs come here.>>
DAR
Some Canadian doctors do go to the US (but this trend has been declining), because they can make about twice as much money... as they feed off the bloated US system. The same system that won't give you health insurance so it can maximize profits and pay it's doctors about twice as much.
I suppose this irony escapes you.
BLK: "The US has better outcomes">>
DAR
Well of course, if you compare two similar countries, each country is going to do slightly better than the other country in various categories. That is to be expected and the US has deeper pockets with nearly 10x the population. But it wouldn't be honest to cherry a couple categories as you do here. Best to have a serious study of the issue. I have already provided this. In the largest systematic study of this, Canada actually came out ahead. Again:
"The most comprehensive study that was ever under taken on the two health care systems." [was done] "jointly by Harvard University and McMasters University:
Overall, 14 of the 38 studies showed better outcomes in Canada, while only 5 favored the U.S. The remaining 19 studies showed equivalent or mixed results in the two nations. When the studies were combined statistically, the mortality rate was 5% lower in Canada."
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/may/quali ... lthcar.php
Try again.
D.
***
BLK: "Texas has NEVER taken in more federal dolars than it paid out->>
DAR
Thanks for repeating my point.
BLK: that privilege is reserved for those liberal states like New Jersey,...>>
DAR
Well when you are going to be wrong, best to be TEXAS sized wrong and hit it out of the park. New Jersey is in fact the furthest, of all states, from being a welfare state, receiving only 61 cents for every dollar they pay in.
BLK: New York, and Delaware- unsustainable hotbeds of Liberal- think.>>
DAR
Wrong again on both counts.
New York $0.79
Delaware $0.77
New Jersey $0.61
--ibid
All the welfare states are red states, Texas being the only exception. Which is to say, every non-welfare state is a blue state, except for Texas.
D.
***
[Swede, Borg, says Swiss too socialist]
DAR
You should read past your first sentence.
"Like many societies, we went too far in our welfare-state ambitions," say Borg.
He's right of course. You can go to far. The Swedes probably do, in several categories. So they will scale it back a bit.
This says nothing about whether we have too much or too little since our situation is so incomparable. There is some good evidence we need more.
For instance, in the Human Development Index, which is a "comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living for countries worldwide. [And] is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare."
Canada comes in third.
Sweden is seventh.
The US is 15th.
As a society, we could do a lot better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ment_Index
D.
***
[Cardin quote]
DAR
Cardin is exactly right. The guy is a freeloader. Let's take his question and modify it slightly:
“I decided not to get the [AUTO] insurance. That’s working out for me because I’m able to save that extra money and give it to my family members and use it on myself. Senator Cardin, I want to know are you going to tell me an individual…that I have to buy [auto insurance] or else you’re going to fine me $2,500 every year I don’t get it? Our founding fathers assured us... blah blah"
DAR
There was a time when auto insurance was not required. That didn't work out so well. The UK required it in 1930. All US states require it now except for New Hampshire. In Virginia you can just pay a $500 fine instead. There doesn't seem to be a lot of argument about it. Each person should pay for their risk. Same with health care.
Bigd: "he basically stated that the guy would have problems if he had a serious medical condition. This could be true...>>
DAR
Exactly right! It could be true. And often it is true. If the guy gets sick, or hurt, beyond what he can pay, it will be true. This happens what, six thousand times a day or so?
Bigd: "...but Cardin made it sound as if the guy was a freeloader who would not make arrangements to pay his bill.">>
DAR
Exactly right again. Anyone can become ill, or injured with a medical condition costing $100,000 or more. It happens thousands of times a day in the US. How many Americans can pay a $100k bill? Lot's of them could (they, like myself, usually have insurance for the purpose of protecting their savings). How many cannot, ever, pay a $100k bill? Tens of millions. Perhaps a hundred million.
It's time to insure everyone, lower the costs and stop the needless suffering.
I watched an extra from Sicko tonight. It was about a guy who died of cancer after he couldn't raise the $140k to keep up his cancer treatments (he had already paid $40k or so). Here's a short trailer.
About 18,000 die each year in the US because they don't have insurance. That's six 9/11's each year. We fought a multi-trillion dollar war because of one 9/11 event yet we can't spend the money to figure out this problem?
D.
***
BLK: "Behind New Jersey and coming up fast-">>
DAR
For the third time, NJ is the *furthest* of ALL states from being a welfare state. For every dollar they send to the fed they get 61 cents back.
Alaska TAKES $1.84 in federal money for every dollar they send.
http://scatter.wordpress.com/2009/02/16 ... ing-state/ <--See the list here.
Notice the RED welfare states at the top (Alaska 3rd place) and all the BLUE states at the bottom.
BLK: "...the ideal, after all would be to get a dollar for a dollar.>>
DAR
Then the ideal is practiced by BLUE states. Every state that takes a dollar or less for every dollar it pays in, except for Texas, is a BLUE state.
Of the top 25 welfare states (top of the list), 20 of them are RED states.
"Wealth distribution" indeed.
D.
***
Bigd: "So they still pay more than they get.>>
DAR
No, Alaska, pays much LESS than they get.
They pay in $1.00 and take $1.84.
http://scatter.wordpress.com/2009/02/16 ... ing-state/ <--See the list here.
D.
***
BLK: "These sites represent Hussein’s mindset about Healthcare, why wouldn’t I repeat them...">>
DAR
You are so used to spinning and less than accurately framing the issue you aren't even aware you are doing it. YOU SAID:
"Barack Obama says some employers might choose a government-run health care plan..."
And then you proceeded to quote a bunch of other people, journalists, headlines, which say this. Not him. As if that means something. The truth is in the details. Be accurate. It's not too much to ask.
BLK: "here is absolutely nothing that either Dog or I could say that you would agree with...">>
DAR
Not true. I have already agreed with you both on several things, including, as I remember, affirmative action and illegal immigration depressing wages, etc.,.
When you are right, or have the better argument, I will agree with you or anyone. No exceptions.
D.
***
Bigd: "Public option is government run.>>
DAR
If you ask people if they would like the option of going to work by "public transit" or "government transit" people will overwhelming choose the former even though it is the same as the latter. This means these people want the one thing, but they want to call it the other thing. So it's a semantic game based upon the unpopularity, demonization, of a word. People want government help, they just don't want to call it that.
Bigd: The bill makes it clear that it will be a government run program and all others will have to align with what the government dictates.>>
DAR
"Government run" is so ill defined as to be useless. You could say it is all government run right now since there is so much government involvement. And of course "all the others" ALREADY "have to align with what the government dictates." And they do.
Years ago I read the by the time a doctor is finished his education the government had about $200k invested in him. If you want to define "government run" loosely enough, it applies to everything in the US.
Bigd: "The poll asks if people want a government run health care (the public option) and the majority does not.>>
DAR
I have provided eight polls showing medium to strong support for a public option, you have not provided *a single one* showing a majority not supporting a public option. Inserting the word "government" into a poll question is a well known way for pollsters to skew things. You can see <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/ ... tml">seven polls examined here</a>. Some of them even use the word "government."
A public option of course allows people to keep what they have now and the only pressure on the private companies will be to reduce prices (and profits). Hence the constant misinformation we are enjoying from them currently.
D.
***
BLK: "[Obama] tells a woman that her mom would not “qualify” for a pacemaker, and should just “take a pain pill” instead.>>
DAR
I have no idea what you are talking about but I watched a movie about something similar this evening. It was an extra on Sicko called "Uniquely American." This lady, without insurance, got cancer in her spinal cord. They wanted $12k to do the necessary tests to see if it could be treated. She had income problems so they told her they would do it for half price. She didn't have that so she made calenders with a theme about her life and sold them. She got enough money.
Okay, goes in, finds out she needs surgery and radiation treatments. They set up the appointments. Oops, doctor comes back and says he didn't realize there were payment concerns and recommends she take ibuprofen and go back to her GP, he would be the best person to help at this time.
She goes to pay for THAT visit and the test bills and they say, hey, where did you get the six grand? Apparently you were able to raise the money, and thus do have an income, so you don't get the half price, you owe us $12k.
Now go home and DIE.
God bless America eh?
BLK: Our Gutless Leader is sooooo compassionate. Come on, D- defend that-..>>
DAR
Defend what? Be specific.
D.
***
Bigd: "The AMA opposes it."
DAR
The AMA is a right leaning organization that represents a minority of American doctors.
But you're wrong anyway:
AMA Endorses House Bill.
D.
***
BLK: "They asked people and the people said, yeah, medical bills WERE A PART of my problem so Harvard attributed the bankruptcy to medical.">>
DAR
Your comments are a bogus caricature of the study. A complete strawman unworthy of consideration.
It is true that there is some subjectivity when considering this issue. Was the bankruptcy caused by the medical bills or other income problems? Also, deciding to file is sometimes a choice to make, or not.
But this extensive study DID take these things into consideration, as best as possible. You OBVIOUSLY haven't read it and instead, as usual, lean on your usual rightwing nattering nabobs for your misinformation. 6,000 a day is a conservative estimate. It could be more, it might be less. Regardless, it IS an *extraordinary* number that represents a tremendous amount of suffering and it is something that other peer countries do not, comparatively, experience at all.
D.
***
BLK: It's soooo elitist to sneer at someone who perhaps does not speak like some preacher>>
DAR
I make fun of the preachers too. Really.
BLK: "a sign of how intolerant your people are, D- you just refuse to admit you’re bigoted.>>
DAR
Bigoted against what? Dumb asses?
I admit it!
D.
----------------
"I think on a national level your Department of Law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out."
--Sarah Palin, referring to a department that does not exist while attempting to explain why as president she wouldn't be subjected to the same ethics investigations that compelled her to resign as governor of Alaska, ABC News interview, July 7, 2009
***
Bigd: "the actual number of uninsured who cannot get (or afford) insurance is about 12 million.">>
DAR
You like to float this whopper but as you have been shown repeatedly, it's not true. Your distortion is carefully unpacked, line by line, at factcheck:
The 'Real' Uninsured
Incidentally, even if your claim was true, and it's not true, it would still be unacceptable. But it's not true, so it's irrelevant. Waste of time.
D.
***
BLK: "[Obama] wants your elderly relatives to die.">>
DAR
You don't believe that. No one believes that. Why do you say things you don't believe? Why don't you try being honest? You really seem to be more and more a person who has mental problems.
BLK: "...if we can abandon our older citizens..., we will lose a part of our soul,>>
DAR
You don't see a problem with end of life care and the chronically ill eating up 80% of costs as something that needs to be addressed? Obama's question about giving hip surgeries to terminally ill seniors was in the context of everyone having insurance. So it becomes an issue with regard to who makes the subjective decision of when it is appropriate. But why would anyone try to explain "context" to you? A person, who clearly, is not well.
BLK: "...a part of what does make us the greatest country in the world, bar none.>>
DAR
By what objective measurement do you pretend to float the notion that your country is "the greatest country in the world" Blake? Do tell. Have you ever even been out of Texas? LOL.
I really do hope you try to defend this one. Try it and see. Don't run from it.
BLK: "why... would we want to emulate the worst health care systems in the world,>>
DAR
I was just reading the following, which applies. Not only do we have inferior care and worse results, we pay nearly double for it.
That's something to be ashamed of.
"The OECD countries with the highest life expectancy (Japan, Iceland, Switzerland, Sweden and Australia) spent, on average, half as much per capita on health care as the United States. According to the World Health Organization, Japan's average life expectancy is 83 years, compared to 78 for the United States, and OECD data shows that Japan spends 60 percent less per capita than the U.S. does. A 2000 WHO report ranked the United States No. 1 in per capita health expenditures, No. 37 on overall health system performance and No. 72 on level of health."
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/obama ... laims.html --factcheck
BLK: "...where they practice euthanasia by neglect,>>
DAR
That's what we do here, now. And sometimes we do it when the government won't come for you. See Katrina, where nurses had to kill people after waiting many days with no power.
Hey Blake, guess which country the following quote is about?
"The temperature was over a 100 degrees in the hospital. Living conditions were third world. An autopsy may not determine if the patients were euthanized. The bodies were severely decomposed."
On American soil. Do you know another comparable, peer, first world country that treats it's citizens like this? Blake?
BLK: "...and decide “who is worth it”?>>
DAR
In the US, if you don't have money, you "aren't worth it." You pretend to follow Jesus, but unlike him and his emphasis on concern for the poor, you have stopped following his sayings a long time ago and completely perverted yourself, your religion, into greed and the worship of the almighty dollar.
D.
***
SCHAT: "People do not die because they don’t have insurance – they may die because they don’t receive the medical treatment they need.">>
DAR
Sometimes you can refute a persons argument by simply quoting their argument. This is one of those times.
SCHAT: "Congress set up a “pilot” program where they and their families all use this so-called government option plan for their treatment...">>
DAR
They have for decades already. And it works very well. We should all have their plan.
SCHAT: "Freeloading is what these government officials are doing off the backs of hardworking people like us.>>
DAR
Now you are getting it! So don't get fooled into thinking that if we fix this by all paying for a similar system, cover everyone, lower costs, remove the bloat, get rid of a thousand parasitic insurance companies and their legion of billing clerks, that this is a bad thing for the people. It's only a bad thing for the parasites currently feeding off of our money. They are desperate not to have their system changed.
SCHAT: "Anyone who wants socialized medicine should relocate to Canada and check it out for a while.>>
DAR
I agree. I was born in Canada and lived there for 21 years. And I am in B.C. (British California) right now. Any questions?
Be very skeptical of anything you hear about the Canadian medical system from the US media right now. It's mostly lies and spin bought and paid for by the trillion dollar US medical parasites (and then there is no end of those "true believers" who spread the misinformation for free).
In fact be very skeptical of most of your media. The rightwing purchased most of your media sometime ago and it has a high ratio of lies and spin.
Canadians look at the US mess and shake their heads. Any Canadian politician proposing something similar would be laughed, or booed, out of the room. The fellow who was considered "Canada's 'father of Medicare'" was just voted the Greatest Canadian of all time. You can read about him here:
http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/top_ten/nomi ... tommy.html
Excerpt:
"His family's socialist leanings were solidified after Douglas was hospitalized at the age of 10. Due to a bone infection suffered four years earlier, Douglas's knee required several operations - none of which were successful.
Without the money to pay for a specialist, his parents were told that the only option was to amputate their son's leg before the infection spread to the rest of his body. But before that could happen, a visiting surgeon offered to operate on Douglas for free, as long as his students were allowed to attend. The surgery saved Douglas's leg - quite possibly his life - and would serve as his inspiration for his dream of universally accessible medical care."
So he grew up in a time when Canada suffered under a system similar to what the US scrapes along with now. If you don't have the money, off with the leg! Canada wonders why the US hasn't figured out how to deliver health-care to all of its citizens even though it spends far more.
D.
***
Bigd: "You all presume he will not pay his bills.>>
DAR
Earth to Bigd... a lot of Americans, tens of millions if not a 100 million people in the US live from pay check to pay check (I have been a landlord of several properties for many years, I know these folks). It is not an assumption to assert that if these people get really sick, or really hurt, they will not be able to pay their bills. It happens thousands of times every day. This is not an assumption. This is a fact.
Just like car insurance, people can pretend that they can pay their liability bills but we know in many instances this is not the case. So we require it.
Bigd: Auto insurance? Come now. Driving is a privilege.>>
DAR
Good example. Getting health care in America is also a privilege! The poor, the ill, can be damned.
Bigd: "Those in poor health can pay more and we can pay for all our wellness visits and check ups, just like with a car.>>
DAR
Problem is, the for profit industries aren't interested in covering the chronically ill or even those who have had ANY illness (see Blake). So we can either:
a) let these people crawl around in the street and die when they get sick (we do a little of this now but since it's embarrassing when international visitors come by we find it unacceptable).
b) pay for everyone in a haphazard, last minute emergency care, patched together, cost shifting way that lets many suffer which actually costs us FAR more and gives profoundly inferior results.
We have been going with "b" for quite some time and while it has made some people exceedingly rich, it's getting a little embarrassing.
Bigd: "The problem with people... they expect the government to take care of them and give them a ride on someone else’s back.">>
DAR
You shouldn't be so hard on Blake. I pay for myself, every month, and I pay for his risk too.
If I didn't have life savings and property to protect from a catastrophic incident, I might chose to freeload like Blake. I don't disagree with his strategy. From an individual perspective, it's actually kind of smart, in a cynical sort of way.
Well, unless his heart blows a valve or two. I knew a customer of mine that paid, I think (he was wealthy but medicare paid it I think) about $180k for complications regarding a quintuple bypass.
What percentage of Americans do you think can pay that bill Bigd? I'm guessing less than 30%, even with easy payments.
D.
***
BLK: "I am kind of suspicious of your list, D->>
DAR
I welcome your skepticism.
BLK: I mean, I know that NY and NJ tax the snot out of their citizens>>
DAR
Yes they do. This would not be relevant to FED tax dollars paid and received by the state.
BLK: but some of those others are just wrong.>>
DAR
Excellent. You've made the claim, now back it up.
BLK: What criteria were they using?">>
DAR
Count the dollars paid to the Fed by the state, and then count the Fed dollars received from the Fed by the state. It's not very difficult and it's not a big mystery. This is an objective measurable claim we should be able to agree upon.
Their source, as given, is The Tax Foundation. Note:
"The Tax Foundation is the oldest non-profit tax think tank in the country, founded in 1937."
Don't forget to back up your claim.
D.
***
MIKE: Yes cherry pick, Darrell, as Borg went on to argue the Swedes have gone WAY too far.>>
DAR
He may be right. Perhaps the Swedes have gone way to far. That's one man's opinion. How does Sweden rank in the world under normal measurements of quality of life? See above. Third. So he can't complain too much. I doubt people will pay him much attention.
MIKE: He calls for a “night watchman’s state” in which the government provides security but little else.>>
DAR
Well then he is way out of the mainstream and an extremist. Again, his is just one man's opinion. I don't doubt that Sweden has a few thousands of these. We should listen to these people and then move on to something useful.
MIKE: "...as far as my insults, I was merely presenting facts."
DAR
You might try presenting facts without relying upon the insults.
MIKE: "...you wouldn’t call yourself one..."
DAR
Right. I don't label myself a socialist. Best to allow people to label themselves. Anything else is almost always ad hominem.
MIKE: "YOUR WORDS, Darrell, YOUR WORDS.">>
DAR
Yes, and according to my normative understanding of the word, I am not a socialist. So you can stop the childish name calling and stick to the issues.
MIKE: That defines cowardly when you won’t own your position.>>
DAR
I don't call you by labels you don't accept. It's not unreasonable that I expect the same consideration.
D.
***
*************
Bigd: "Most people agree we need reform but that government is not the answer, despite the few flawed polls that came out before this monstrosity was unveiled.">>
DAR
I have given you eight scientific polls showing strong majorities supporting a public option. You have not provided a single one, asking this question, which shows otherwise.
D.
-----------------
"Now, we know there are those who will oppose reform no matter what," Obama said. "We know the same special interests and their agents in Congress will make the same old arguments and use the same scare tactics that have stopped reform before because they profit from this relentless escalation in health care costs."
***
Blk: "How’s Canada, D?">>
DAR
Superb. Rented scooters yesterday and scooted to <a href="http://www.explorevancouverisland.com/C ... m">Cordova Bay"</a> and had blueberries for lunch. Scooted to <a href="http://www.ila-chateau.com/sooke/pic01.jpg">Sooke</a> today.
Headlines in the paper the other day were about the government giving out <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb ... html">free crack pipes</a>.
I'll see if I can get you one. Couldn't hurt.
D.
***
DAR
Barbara, I would like to bet that you will be the first one to squawk when a private insurance company tells you that you cannot have a necessary test or that your elderly mother or father are denied the right to care, but left to die. If you think this won’t happen (or hasn't happened), then you really are stupid.
The reason this is more likely to happen with the private insurance company system (or to a person with no insurance), is because the purpose of a non-profit single payer system is to provide coverage to everyone. The purpose of the US system, is to maximize profits which it does most effectively by completely denying coverage to those who need it the most and by denying care to those who do have it. Different purpose, different outcome.
D.
***
Texas. The ONLY red state that's not on welfare.
D.
***
BLK: "I do not want a government pinhead telling ME how severe MY affliction is.>>
DAR
What you would have now, IF you could get insurance, is an insurance pinhead arguing with your doctor about "how severe" your affliction is. Canada doesn't have that. You figure out with your doctor what you need/want, and it's covered. Don't like you doctor, go to another, they are all "in network." If you doctor says you need it, you get it. And he sends the bill to the insurance company (there is only one) and they pay it.
Duke University, in the US, has a world class medical hospital with 900 beds. They also have 900 billing clerks. One per bed. And the insurance companies have 900 people (pin-heads) on the their end to negotiate with those billing clerks about how "severe" your affliction is. And the goal of those pin-heads is to maximize profits which they do by limiting coverage (just like they limit your by not even insuring you). It's their job, it's what they do.
Canada doesn't have that.
D.
-------------
"Wendell Potter, a former head of corporate communications for CIGNA who finally listened to his conscience, left behind the blood money, and started talking about the evil he was doing as a shill for the health care denial industry.
...Potter was the point man for CIGNA during various high-profile denials over the past few years, like the case of Nataline Sarkisyan, a 17-year-old who died because CIGNA refused to give her a liver transplant. Potter talks about what it was like helping cover for CIGNA as it killed this poor girl..."
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003022.html
***
BIRTHER ROAST
"The “Certification of Live Birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” doc**ent is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii."
SMRSTRAUSS
This is not true in two ways. First when Obama was born this provision was not allowed. Only births in Hawaii were registered in Hawaii in 1961, and Obamas’ birth was registered in Hawaii in 1961.
Second, even today the state of Hawaii does not allow any of its doc**ents to lie. So, when a child is born outside of Hawaii and his parents qualify as Hawaiian residents, the short-form birth certificate must say something like: “Hawaii birth certificate, location of birth: New Jersey (or wherever it was). Obama’s says that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.
Re: “The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only doc**ent that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.’
But Obama cannot show it. Hawaii sends out only the short-form certifications of live birth. Only the short-form certifications to everyone. http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20 ... _line.html.
So, unless Obama has a copy of the original birth certificate, saved from the time of birth by his parents, and not lost since then (and many of us do lose our original birth certificate), then all that he can show is what Hawaii sends, and Hawaii sends out only the short-form certification.
The doc**ent that Obama posted and showed to FactCheck and PoliFact was confirmed by the two officials of the state when they looked into Obama’s records and found an original birth certificate. (At the time Obama was born Hawaii did not allow foreign birth certificates to be filed.) And subsequently, the spokewoman for the department spoke to the Chicago Tribune and said that the statement by the two officials was proof of birth in Hawaii.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/polit ... n_for.html
***
Bigd: "Why is it you give examples like this CIGNA>>
DAR
Barbara referred to government denying care and causing a death, but she forgot to give an example. I thought I would gave her one from private insurance. There are lots more.
Bigd: "Does Duke have one billing clerk per bed>>
DAR
Yes. Unless this doctor from that hospital was lying to the senate. Note:
"The Senate Finance Committee has heard about the problem of overhead. On Nov. 19, Professor Uwe Reinhardt, who is also on the board of trustees of the 900-bed Duke University Hospital, used Duke to illustrate the problem: “We have 900 billing clerks at Duke. I’m not sure we have a nurse per (each) bed, but we have a billing clerk per bed…"
http://www.correntewire.com/merry_chris ... h_62_cents
Bigd: "...or doe they have 900 billing clerks because of the volume of business they do?"
DAR
The number of beds a hospital has is a normative measurement of the size of a hospital.
Bigd: "Anyone could assume that it is one clerk for each bed..."
DAR
900 beds, 900 billing clerks, equals approximately one clerk per bed.
Bigd: "...but the beds are used thousands of times per year..."
DAR
No, each bed is not used "thousands of times per year."
Bigd: "Duke attracts a total of more than 60,000 inpatient stays and 1.4 million outpatient visits annually.">>
DAR
You are mistaken. My stat refers to one hospital. If you read your stat more carefully you would have noticed that it refers to three hospitals and the entire medical university system which includes a multitude of out patient clinics, etc.,.
Bigd: "Divide that by 900 billing clerks and you get 1,622 patients per clerk.>>
DAR
And 1,622 patients per bed per year which is 4.4 per bed, per day. Please.
D.
***
BLK: "Canada has a Looooong waiting list,">>
DAR
Canada has some waits, for some elective procedures, in some areas. This is a funding issue that differs by province and area. If we have backlogs in the courts do we say, "well, this legal system doesn't work, it needs to go." Or do we say, "we need to hire more judges and build more court houses?" If we have more convicts than prisons do we say "this whole idea of jails needs to scrapped, it's just unworkable." Or do we say, "we need to spend more on prisons?"
BLK: "...and the government decides if you are worth it.">>
DAR
Actually, that's not true. But even if it were true (and it's not, your doctor decides what you need and he doesn't care because he doesn't pay for it), it would still be preferable to having a private, for profit corporation decide if you "are worth it." This is because they make more money if your "aren't worth it."
BLK: "Where’s the benefit for this, D?">>
DAR
There are several benefits. Nearly everyone's covered, lower cost, better outcomes, a more satisfied populace, near zero medical bankruptcies, nearly everyone's covered.
Why don't you list the benefits of the US system which doesn't cover or under covers tens of millions, costs more, has worse outcomes, has a more dissatisfied populace, causes about 5,700 medical bankruptcies a day and leaves tens of millions without coverage?
D.
***
BLK: "[the left] wouldn’t bother demonizing her [Palin] if she did not represent a threat to them.">>
DAR
The idea that Palin could represent a threat is not an idea I can take seriously. But I really do try because I know there are many, like you, who for some reason really believe this.
When has Palin ever been anything other than a gift that keeps on giving to her political opponents? She has a small and ardent following but at the same time has a group much larger that can't stand her. She is *unelectable* on the national level.
Here is the effect she had on the GOP ticket:
Independents:
More likely to support: 16%
Less likely: 32%
No diff: 50%
All voters:
More likely to support: 18%
Less likely to support: 24%
No difference: 56%
"...her selection only had a net positive effect on support for the Republican ticket among white evangelicals, with a net negative effect among white Catholics and Independents..."
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/ ... rizer.html
This is something to fear? No I don't think so.
D.
--------------
Paul Begala on Palin:
"Her statement was incoherent, bizarre and juvenile. The text, as posted on Gov. Palin's official website (here), uses 2,549 words and 18 exclamation points. Lincoln freed the slaves with 719 words and nary an exclamation; Mr. Jefferson declared our independence in 1,322 words and, again, no exclamation points. Nixon resigned the presidency in 1,796 words -- still no exclamation points. Gov. Palin capitalized words at random - whole words, like "TO," "HELP," and "AND," and the first letter of "Troops."
Gov. Palin's official announcement that she is resigning as chief executive of the great state of Alaska had all the depth and gravitas of a 13-year-old's review of the Jonas Brothers' album on Facebook. She even quoted her parents' refrigerator magnet. She put her son's name in quotations marks. Why? Who knows. She writes, "I promised efficiencies and effectiveness!?" Was she exclaiming or questioning? I get it: both!"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-bega ... 25633.html
***
Bigd: "The entire system is designed to move people away from private insurance and to government run health care.">>
DAR
Maybe the reason repubs aren't trusted on this is because they are so serially dishonest, as you are again, here. This is not "government run health care."
"Obama remains more trusted than Republicans in Congress to do a better job on healthcare reform, the poll showed, with 54 percent of respondents putting their faith in the U.S. leader versus 34 percent in favor of Republican lawmakers."
Reuters.
D.
***
[Obama won't protect from terrorists]
DAR
Let's check and see what normal people think about this:
"Who do you trust to do a better job handling the threat of terrorism — (Obama) or the (Republicans in Congress)?
Obama: 55%
Republicans in Congress: 34%
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... 62209.html
D.
***
BLK: "Canada can’t hire more Doctors,>>
DAR
Canada is hiring more doctors. The ratio has been going up.
BLK: because who wants the hassle of a broken system?>>
DAR
You have it upside down again. You want me to find a poll of what doctors think of the different systems? You will get smoked again, as usual. Support for single payer has been steadily rising among US doctors. Observe:
***
"...a poll published recently [2008] in the Annals of Internal Medicine showing that 59 percent of U.S. doctors support a "single payer" plan that essentially eliminates the central role of private insurers. Most industrial societies -- including nations as diverse as Taiwan, France, and Canada -- have adopted universal health systems that provide health care to all citizens and permit them free choice of their doctors and hospitals...
The new poll, conducted by Indiana University's Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research, shows a sharp 10 percent spike in the number of doctors supporting national insurance: 59 percent in 2007 compared to 49 percent five years earlier. This indicates that more physicians are eager for systematic changes..."
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?art ... ors_revolt
I am sure Canadian doctors would like some tweaks. I bet the percentage that want to switch to a US style system is tiny.
Regarding the above, it seems they are really tired of haggling with 1,300 insurance companies and being denied the ability to treat patients as they think they need just so a corporation can give a billion dollar golden parachute to a CEO (but I know that sort of thing is really important to you guys).
BLK: This is why most good Canadian Docs come here.>>
DAR
Some Canadian doctors do go to the US (but this trend has been declining), because they can make about twice as much money... as they feed off the bloated US system. The same system that won't give you health insurance so it can maximize profits and pay it's doctors about twice as much.
I suppose this irony escapes you.
BLK: "The US has better outcomes">>
DAR
Well of course, if you compare two similar countries, each country is going to do slightly better than the other country in various categories. That is to be expected and the US has deeper pockets with nearly 10x the population. But it wouldn't be honest to cherry a couple categories as you do here. Best to have a serious study of the issue. I have already provided this. In the largest systematic study of this, Canada actually came out ahead. Again:
"The most comprehensive study that was ever under taken on the two health care systems." [was done] "jointly by Harvard University and McMasters University:
Overall, 14 of the 38 studies showed better outcomes in Canada, while only 5 favored the U.S. The remaining 19 studies showed equivalent or mixed results in the two nations. When the studies were combined statistically, the mortality rate was 5% lower in Canada."
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/may/quali ... lthcar.php
Try again.
D.
***
BLK: "Texas has NEVER taken in more federal dolars than it paid out->>
DAR
Thanks for repeating my point.
BLK: that privilege is reserved for those liberal states like New Jersey,...>>
DAR
Well when you are going to be wrong, best to be TEXAS sized wrong and hit it out of the park. New Jersey is in fact the furthest, of all states, from being a welfare state, receiving only 61 cents for every dollar they pay in.
BLK: New York, and Delaware- unsustainable hotbeds of Liberal- think.>>
DAR
Wrong again on both counts.
New York $0.79
Delaware $0.77
New Jersey $0.61
--ibid
All the welfare states are red states, Texas being the only exception. Which is to say, every non-welfare state is a blue state, except for Texas.
D.
***
[Swede, Borg, says Swiss too socialist]
DAR
You should read past your first sentence.
"Like many societies, we went too far in our welfare-state ambitions," say Borg.
He's right of course. You can go to far. The Swedes probably do, in several categories. So they will scale it back a bit.
This says nothing about whether we have too much or too little since our situation is so incomparable. There is some good evidence we need more.
For instance, in the Human Development Index, which is a "comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living for countries worldwide. [And] is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare."
Canada comes in third.
Sweden is seventh.
The US is 15th.
As a society, we could do a lot better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ment_Index
D.
***
[Cardin quote]
DAR
Cardin is exactly right. The guy is a freeloader. Let's take his question and modify it slightly:
“I decided not to get the [AUTO] insurance. That’s working out for me because I’m able to save that extra money and give it to my family members and use it on myself. Senator Cardin, I want to know are you going to tell me an individual…that I have to buy [auto insurance] or else you’re going to fine me $2,500 every year I don’t get it? Our founding fathers assured us... blah blah"
DAR
There was a time when auto insurance was not required. That didn't work out so well. The UK required it in 1930. All US states require it now except for New Hampshire. In Virginia you can just pay a $500 fine instead. There doesn't seem to be a lot of argument about it. Each person should pay for their risk. Same with health care.
Bigd: "he basically stated that the guy would have problems if he had a serious medical condition. This could be true...>>
DAR
Exactly right! It could be true. And often it is true. If the guy gets sick, or hurt, beyond what he can pay, it will be true. This happens what, six thousand times a day or so?
Bigd: "...but Cardin made it sound as if the guy was a freeloader who would not make arrangements to pay his bill.">>
DAR
Exactly right again. Anyone can become ill, or injured with a medical condition costing $100,000 or more. It happens thousands of times a day in the US. How many Americans can pay a $100k bill? Lot's of them could (they, like myself, usually have insurance for the purpose of protecting their savings). How many cannot, ever, pay a $100k bill? Tens of millions. Perhaps a hundred million.
It's time to insure everyone, lower the costs and stop the needless suffering.
I watched an extra from Sicko tonight. It was about a guy who died of cancer after he couldn't raise the $140k to keep up his cancer treatments (he had already paid $40k or so). Here's a short trailer.
About 18,000 die each year in the US because they don't have insurance. That's six 9/11's each year. We fought a multi-trillion dollar war because of one 9/11 event yet we can't spend the money to figure out this problem?
D.
***
BLK: "Behind New Jersey and coming up fast-">>
DAR
For the third time, NJ is the *furthest* of ALL states from being a welfare state. For every dollar they send to the fed they get 61 cents back.
Alaska TAKES $1.84 in federal money for every dollar they send.
http://scatter.wordpress.com/2009/02/16 ... ing-state/ <--See the list here.
Notice the RED welfare states at the top (Alaska 3rd place) and all the BLUE states at the bottom.
BLK: "...the ideal, after all would be to get a dollar for a dollar.>>
DAR
Then the ideal is practiced by BLUE states. Every state that takes a dollar or less for every dollar it pays in, except for Texas, is a BLUE state.
Of the top 25 welfare states (top of the list), 20 of them are RED states.
"Wealth distribution" indeed.
D.
***
Bigd: "So they still pay more than they get.>>
DAR
No, Alaska, pays much LESS than they get.
They pay in $1.00 and take $1.84.
http://scatter.wordpress.com/2009/02/16 ... ing-state/ <--See the list here.
D.
***
BLK: "These sites represent Hussein’s mindset about Healthcare, why wouldn’t I repeat them...">>
DAR
You are so used to spinning and less than accurately framing the issue you aren't even aware you are doing it. YOU SAID:
"Barack Obama says some employers might choose a government-run health care plan..."
And then you proceeded to quote a bunch of other people, journalists, headlines, which say this. Not him. As if that means something. The truth is in the details. Be accurate. It's not too much to ask.
BLK: "here is absolutely nothing that either Dog or I could say that you would agree with...">>
DAR
Not true. I have already agreed with you both on several things, including, as I remember, affirmative action and illegal immigration depressing wages, etc.,.
When you are right, or have the better argument, I will agree with you or anyone. No exceptions.
D.
***
Bigd: "Public option is government run.>>
DAR
If you ask people if they would like the option of going to work by "public transit" or "government transit" people will overwhelming choose the former even though it is the same as the latter. This means these people want the one thing, but they want to call it the other thing. So it's a semantic game based upon the unpopularity, demonization, of a word. People want government help, they just don't want to call it that.
Bigd: The bill makes it clear that it will be a government run program and all others will have to align with what the government dictates.>>
DAR
"Government run" is so ill defined as to be useless. You could say it is all government run right now since there is so much government involvement. And of course "all the others" ALREADY "have to align with what the government dictates." And they do.
Years ago I read the by the time a doctor is finished his education the government had about $200k invested in him. If you want to define "government run" loosely enough, it applies to everything in the US.
Bigd: "The poll asks if people want a government run health care (the public option) and the majority does not.>>
DAR
I have provided eight polls showing medium to strong support for a public option, you have not provided *a single one* showing a majority not supporting a public option. Inserting the word "government" into a poll question is a well known way for pollsters to skew things. You can see <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/ ... tml">seven polls examined here</a>. Some of them even use the word "government."
A public option of course allows people to keep what they have now and the only pressure on the private companies will be to reduce prices (and profits). Hence the constant misinformation we are enjoying from them currently.
D.
***
BLK: "[Obama] tells a woman that her mom would not “qualify” for a pacemaker, and should just “take a pain pill” instead.>>
DAR
I have no idea what you are talking about but I watched a movie about something similar this evening. It was an extra on Sicko called "Uniquely American." This lady, without insurance, got cancer in her spinal cord. They wanted $12k to do the necessary tests to see if it could be treated. She had income problems so they told her they would do it for half price. She didn't have that so she made calenders with a theme about her life and sold them. She got enough money.
Okay, goes in, finds out she needs surgery and radiation treatments. They set up the appointments. Oops, doctor comes back and says he didn't realize there were payment concerns and recommends she take ibuprofen and go back to her GP, he would be the best person to help at this time.
She goes to pay for THAT visit and the test bills and they say, hey, where did you get the six grand? Apparently you were able to raise the money, and thus do have an income, so you don't get the half price, you owe us $12k.
Now go home and DIE.
God bless America eh?
BLK: Our Gutless Leader is sooooo compassionate. Come on, D- defend that-..>>
DAR
Defend what? Be specific.
D.
***
Bigd: "The AMA opposes it."
DAR
The AMA is a right leaning organization that represents a minority of American doctors.
But you're wrong anyway:
AMA Endorses House Bill.
D.
***
BLK: "They asked people and the people said, yeah, medical bills WERE A PART of my problem so Harvard attributed the bankruptcy to medical.">>
DAR
Your comments are a bogus caricature of the study. A complete strawman unworthy of consideration.
It is true that there is some subjectivity when considering this issue. Was the bankruptcy caused by the medical bills or other income problems? Also, deciding to file is sometimes a choice to make, or not.
But this extensive study DID take these things into consideration, as best as possible. You OBVIOUSLY haven't read it and instead, as usual, lean on your usual rightwing nattering nabobs for your misinformation. 6,000 a day is a conservative estimate. It could be more, it might be less. Regardless, it IS an *extraordinary* number that represents a tremendous amount of suffering and it is something that other peer countries do not, comparatively, experience at all.
D.
***
BLK: It's soooo elitist to sneer at someone who perhaps does not speak like some preacher>>
DAR
I make fun of the preachers too. Really.
BLK: "a sign of how intolerant your people are, D- you just refuse to admit you’re bigoted.>>
DAR
Bigoted against what? Dumb asses?
I admit it!
D.
----------------
"I think on a national level your Department of Law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out."
--Sarah Palin, referring to a department that does not exist while attempting to explain why as president she wouldn't be subjected to the same ethics investigations that compelled her to resign as governor of Alaska, ABC News interview, July 7, 2009
***
Bigd: "the actual number of uninsured who cannot get (or afford) insurance is about 12 million.">>
DAR
You like to float this whopper but as you have been shown repeatedly, it's not true. Your distortion is carefully unpacked, line by line, at factcheck:
The 'Real' Uninsured
Incidentally, even if your claim was true, and it's not true, it would still be unacceptable. But it's not true, so it's irrelevant. Waste of time.
D.
***
BLK: "[Obama] wants your elderly relatives to die.">>
DAR
You don't believe that. No one believes that. Why do you say things you don't believe? Why don't you try being honest? You really seem to be more and more a person who has mental problems.
BLK: "...if we can abandon our older citizens..., we will lose a part of our soul,>>
DAR
You don't see a problem with end of life care and the chronically ill eating up 80% of costs as something that needs to be addressed? Obama's question about giving hip surgeries to terminally ill seniors was in the context of everyone having insurance. So it becomes an issue with regard to who makes the subjective decision of when it is appropriate. But why would anyone try to explain "context" to you? A person, who clearly, is not well.
BLK: "...a part of what does make us the greatest country in the world, bar none.>>
DAR
By what objective measurement do you pretend to float the notion that your country is "the greatest country in the world" Blake? Do tell. Have you ever even been out of Texas? LOL.
I really do hope you try to defend this one. Try it and see. Don't run from it.
BLK: "why... would we want to emulate the worst health care systems in the world,>>
DAR
I was just reading the following, which applies. Not only do we have inferior care and worse results, we pay nearly double for it.
That's something to be ashamed of.
"The OECD countries with the highest life expectancy (Japan, Iceland, Switzerland, Sweden and Australia) spent, on average, half as much per capita on health care as the United States. According to the World Health Organization, Japan's average life expectancy is 83 years, compared to 78 for the United States, and OECD data shows that Japan spends 60 percent less per capita than the U.S. does. A 2000 WHO report ranked the United States No. 1 in per capita health expenditures, No. 37 on overall health system performance and No. 72 on level of health."
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/obama ... laims.html --factcheck
BLK: "...where they practice euthanasia by neglect,>>
DAR
That's what we do here, now. And sometimes we do it when the government won't come for you. See Katrina, where nurses had to kill people after waiting many days with no power.
Hey Blake, guess which country the following quote is about?
"The temperature was over a 100 degrees in the hospital. Living conditions were third world. An autopsy may not determine if the patients were euthanized. The bodies were severely decomposed."
On American soil. Do you know another comparable, peer, first world country that treats it's citizens like this? Blake?
BLK: "...and decide “who is worth it”?>>
DAR
In the US, if you don't have money, you "aren't worth it." You pretend to follow Jesus, but unlike him and his emphasis on concern for the poor, you have stopped following his sayings a long time ago and completely perverted yourself, your religion, into greed and the worship of the almighty dollar.
D.
***
SCHAT: "People do not die because they don’t have insurance – they may die because they don’t receive the medical treatment they need.">>
DAR
Sometimes you can refute a persons argument by simply quoting their argument. This is one of those times.
SCHAT: "Congress set up a “pilot” program where they and their families all use this so-called government option plan for their treatment...">>
DAR
They have for decades already. And it works very well. We should all have their plan.
SCHAT: "Freeloading is what these government officials are doing off the backs of hardworking people like us.>>
DAR
Now you are getting it! So don't get fooled into thinking that if we fix this by all paying for a similar system, cover everyone, lower costs, remove the bloat, get rid of a thousand parasitic insurance companies and their legion of billing clerks, that this is a bad thing for the people. It's only a bad thing for the parasites currently feeding off of our money. They are desperate not to have their system changed.
SCHAT: "Anyone who wants socialized medicine should relocate to Canada and check it out for a while.>>
DAR
I agree. I was born in Canada and lived there for 21 years. And I am in B.C. (British California) right now. Any questions?
Be very skeptical of anything you hear about the Canadian medical system from the US media right now. It's mostly lies and spin bought and paid for by the trillion dollar US medical parasites (and then there is no end of those "true believers" who spread the misinformation for free).
In fact be very skeptical of most of your media. The rightwing purchased most of your media sometime ago and it has a high ratio of lies and spin.
Canadians look at the US mess and shake their heads. Any Canadian politician proposing something similar would be laughed, or booed, out of the room. The fellow who was considered "Canada's 'father of Medicare'" was just voted the Greatest Canadian of all time. You can read about him here:
http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/top_ten/nomi ... tommy.html
Excerpt:
"His family's socialist leanings were solidified after Douglas was hospitalized at the age of 10. Due to a bone infection suffered four years earlier, Douglas's knee required several operations - none of which were successful.
Without the money to pay for a specialist, his parents were told that the only option was to amputate their son's leg before the infection spread to the rest of his body. But before that could happen, a visiting surgeon offered to operate on Douglas for free, as long as his students were allowed to attend. The surgery saved Douglas's leg - quite possibly his life - and would serve as his inspiration for his dream of universally accessible medical care."
So he grew up in a time when Canada suffered under a system similar to what the US scrapes along with now. If you don't have the money, off with the leg! Canada wonders why the US hasn't figured out how to deliver health-care to all of its citizens even though it spends far more.
D.
***
Bigd: "You all presume he will not pay his bills.>>
DAR
Earth to Bigd... a lot of Americans, tens of millions if not a 100 million people in the US live from pay check to pay check (I have been a landlord of several properties for many years, I know these folks). It is not an assumption to assert that if these people get really sick, or really hurt, they will not be able to pay their bills. It happens thousands of times every day. This is not an assumption. This is a fact.
Just like car insurance, people can pretend that they can pay their liability bills but we know in many instances this is not the case. So we require it.
Bigd: Auto insurance? Come now. Driving is a privilege.>>
DAR
Good example. Getting health care in America is also a privilege! The poor, the ill, can be damned.
Bigd: "Those in poor health can pay more and we can pay for all our wellness visits and check ups, just like with a car.>>
DAR
Problem is, the for profit industries aren't interested in covering the chronically ill or even those who have had ANY illness (see Blake). So we can either:
a) let these people crawl around in the street and die when they get sick (we do a little of this now but since it's embarrassing when international visitors come by we find it unacceptable).
b) pay for everyone in a haphazard, last minute emergency care, patched together, cost shifting way that lets many suffer which actually costs us FAR more and gives profoundly inferior results.
We have been going with "b" for quite some time and while it has made some people exceedingly rich, it's getting a little embarrassing.
Bigd: "The problem with people... they expect the government to take care of them and give them a ride on someone else’s back.">>
DAR
You shouldn't be so hard on Blake. I pay for myself, every month, and I pay for his risk too.
If I didn't have life savings and property to protect from a catastrophic incident, I might chose to freeload like Blake. I don't disagree with his strategy. From an individual perspective, it's actually kind of smart, in a cynical sort of way.
Well, unless his heart blows a valve or two. I knew a customer of mine that paid, I think (he was wealthy but medicare paid it I think) about $180k for complications regarding a quintuple bypass.
What percentage of Americans do you think can pay that bill Bigd? I'm guessing less than 30%, even with easy payments.
D.
***
BLK: "I am kind of suspicious of your list, D->>
DAR
I welcome your skepticism.
BLK: I mean, I know that NY and NJ tax the snot out of their citizens>>
DAR
Yes they do. This would not be relevant to FED tax dollars paid and received by the state.
BLK: but some of those others are just wrong.>>
DAR
Excellent. You've made the claim, now back it up.
BLK: What criteria were they using?">>
DAR
Count the dollars paid to the Fed by the state, and then count the Fed dollars received from the Fed by the state. It's not very difficult and it's not a big mystery. This is an objective measurable claim we should be able to agree upon.
Their source, as given, is The Tax Foundation. Note:
"The Tax Foundation is the oldest non-profit tax think tank in the country, founded in 1937."
Don't forget to back up your claim.
D.
***
MIKE: Yes cherry pick, Darrell, as Borg went on to argue the Swedes have gone WAY too far.>>
DAR
He may be right. Perhaps the Swedes have gone way to far. That's one man's opinion. How does Sweden rank in the world under normal measurements of quality of life? See above. Third. So he can't complain too much. I doubt people will pay him much attention.
MIKE: He calls for a “night watchman’s state” in which the government provides security but little else.>>
DAR
Well then he is way out of the mainstream and an extremist. Again, his is just one man's opinion. I don't doubt that Sweden has a few thousands of these. We should listen to these people and then move on to something useful.
MIKE: "...as far as my insults, I was merely presenting facts."
DAR
You might try presenting facts without relying upon the insults.
MIKE: "...you wouldn’t call yourself one..."
DAR
Right. I don't label myself a socialist. Best to allow people to label themselves. Anything else is almost always ad hominem.
MIKE: "YOUR WORDS, Darrell, YOUR WORDS.">>
DAR
Yes, and according to my normative understanding of the word, I am not a socialist. So you can stop the childish name calling and stick to the issues.
MIKE: That defines cowardly when you won’t own your position.>>
DAR
I don't call you by labels you don't accept. It's not unreasonable that I expect the same consideration.
D.
***
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - July)
JULY 25-28, 2009
***
[quote]"...guiding principle... : “To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people.”>>
DAR
Anyone who doesn't believe this can have their opinion changed by a quick visit to India. They could also take a few moments to educate themselves about the history of famine in China.
[quote]"possible government programs that could be used to lower birth rates.">>
DAR
As if, in a places where the birth rate approaches 50 per thousand, this wouldn't be a good thing (the US has a birth rate of 13 per thousand).
The poverty and suffering that comes from this cycle of ignorance and lack of contraception is almost beyond comprehension.
See a list of countries with the highest birth rates here:
http://www.aneki.com/birth.html
As one fellow put it "development is the best contraception."
D.
***
Bigd: "Why the expense and overhaul for such a small group." [uninsured]>>
DAR
Because these uninsured are just one part of the problem. Our run away costs effect our ability to compete as well. Etc.
Bigd: "Surely this can be addressed without affecting those who are not in that small minority.">>
DAR
Even better. This can be addressed while at the same time affecting those, and everyone else in the nation, in a positive way. We all have an interest in an improvement of the health of our fellow citizens. And if we can save money and streamline while doing it, even better. Not better for the parasites feeding on the bloat of current system however.
If you were to lay the uninsured in America (let's say 40 million) end to end they would stretch around the world, at the equator, approximately 1.6 times. We are not talking about an insignificant number of people. And we are paying through the nose right now for their emergency care.
D.
***
Bigd: "The uninsured includes those who were uninsured for a short time...">>
DAR
And it also includes those who are INSURED for a short time. So this cancels out. I fail to grasp why this objection would even be worth mentioning. OF COURSE people are cycling through such a measurement. People drop in, and drop out, as they become employed or lose employment. But this is just statistical noise. A random measurement accounts for this.
Bigd: "About 10 million people... are eligible for some government program...">>
DAR
Some government program that covers what? This is another ridiculous objection I don't get. Of course you are going to have a considerable percentage of people who aren't aware of every little government program. Of course you are going to have a considerable percentage who aren't going to take welfare, or something similar, even though they could.
And we can probably be glad they don't. Because using the current bloated system would simply be feeding the beast and cause us to continue to pay far more than we should.
But this claim about many people being eligible for some government programs doesn't remotely mean this constitutes comprehensive coverage, which is what people need. Otherwise we keep paying for last minute emergency care, and people suffer.
D.
***
BLK: "If you can’t make money off what you discovered, why bother?">>
DAR
Really? You have so prostrated yourself before your god, the almighty dollar, that money is the only motivation you can comprehend? How unfortunate.
Some of the greatest contributions were unlikely to have had monetary motivations. Were Einstein's efforts driven by money? Doubtful. Thomas Paine gave his most popular and important writings away refusing to receive compensation. Etc.
D.
***
BLK: "Despite her popularity, or maybe because of her minimal reaction to this popularity, she has my admiration.... She is still very popular,...">>
DAR
Let's check your claim:
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. July 21-22, 2009
Favorable: 38%
Unfavorable: 51%
http://www.pollingreport.com/p.htm --pollingreport
If this is "very popular" Blake, what would unpopular look like? LOL.
BLK: "...she is their worst nightmare- a conservative feminist."
DAR
Oops, that would be a contradiction. Conservatives are interested in keeping women down as they have been in the past. Feminists are interested in women being treated equal (as they haven't been in the past). See history.
And the real "worst nightmare?" You guys NOT running Palin for anything. Such a waste of talent (err, entertainment) that would be!
D.
***
Good to see Bigd pointing out to dim bulb Blake that Kennedy's point was in fact that it *shouldn't* only be the rich that have such access. Of course, with overwhelming opposition to any sensible effort toward fairness like that, such a thing will be decades away for this country.
GW Bush's wife Laura ran a stop sign and killed someone. I wonder if Blake has spoken so viciously about that mistake too? The question is rhetorical.
D.
***
With strong and proper safe guards in place I am very much in favor of euthanasia being provided by the government for free. We'll get there in a few decades and it will hopefully be routine.
This is a very libertarian idea. That is, that you own your life and can do with it as you wish. We treat our pets better but for some reason, some people can't bring themselves to see that we should give human being this basic dignity.
D.
***
I already read your "zombietime" source when I was trying to confirm your claim. It's not there. Quote where it is.
Momsix asked:
"...where he stated his acceptance of aborting a child up to 2 years old."
My confidence level couldn't be higher that you are wrong. You can't confirm the quote not because you don't have the text book but rather because it doesn't exist. If it did exist, it would be all over the internet (as you know).
D.
***
Bigd: 'Conservatives do not keep women down and they do not have a history of it.">>
DAR
They most certainly do. You couldn't be more wrong. Conservatives cling to the past and fight against progressive change. It's what they do. Their record of doing this couldn't be more clear in the area of women's rights.
Who has consistently worked against voting rights, property rights for women? Conservatives. It's what they do. By definition. They work to conserve the old ways.
The conservatives were consistently on the wrong side of these women's rights issues and many more:
"Women's Educational Equity Act (1972 and 1975, educational equality),... the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (1974), the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, the illegalization of marital rape and the legalization of no-fault divorce in all states, a 1975 law requiring the U.S. Military Academies... [and] the United States Military, NASA, single-sex colleges, men's clubs, etc., to admit women..."
History shows that conservatives are consistently if not always on the WRONG side of these civil/women/human rights issues. Everyone knows this is true, but if it isn't you shouldn't have any trouble *burying* me in examples of conservatives pushing for an advancement of these rights against liberal opposition.
You can't point to one and the fact that I can bury you (and have) in examples going the other way, shows otherwise.
Bigd: "I think are cherry picking. She [Palin] is very popular and will become even more so.">>
DAR
Nope. I just went to pollingreport like I always do and referenced the latest mainstream poll (from FOX nonetheless). She has ALWAYS had very high negatives nationally and she has been trending strongly down in popularity. Reality is once again quite the opposite of your claim.
Since reality isn't going to be adjusting itself to accommodate you (it never does), I recommend you adjust your belief to align with reality instead. That's what I do.
D.
***
Bigd: "he [Ted Kennedy] will not introduce legislation to give everyone the care he has.">>
DAR
Of course not. Why would anyone waste time with something unpassable when, against the entrenched rightwing interests, it is a struggle to get something even moderately sensible passed?
Bigd: "We all have access to health care.">>
DAR
Of course we don't. Don't confuse getting patched up and stabilized in emergency with having comprehensive health care. You should know the difference.
Oh, and we have another 25 million that are underinsured.
Bigd: Why should a 30k a year worker get the same things that Gates can afford?>>
DAR
No one has suggested that. The rich will do fine, as usual. Like your Bill Gates plan? Keep it. The 30k a year worker however, is not doing fine for a country this wealthy. See the example of an insured person at the link above.
D.
***
[Re: Kennedy and Chappaquiddick]
MIKE: Darrell, you’re comparing a tragic auto accident...>>
DAR
To a tragic auto accident.
Mike: "...vs leaving someone to drown after an accident without seeking help.>>
DAR
Perhaps you would be better at diving at night in dark channel waters after a concussion. I doubt it.
And your claim is not correct. He did seek, and get, help. Note:
"Kennedy claimed at the inquest that he called Kopechne's name several times from the shore, then tried to swim down to reach her seven or eight times..."
"Gargan and party co-host Paul Markham then returned to the pond with Kennedy to try to rescue Kopechne. Both of the other men also tried to dive into the water and rescue Kopechne multiple times."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident
Mike: Only you would make such a comparison.>>
DAR
No, I think any reasonable person would make such a comparison. Two unintended auto accidents that resulted in death. One that the far right uses to smear and defame a person with and one that the other side would never use in the same way because it would be in poor taste.
You can bone up on the facts <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquid ... t">here</a> if you want to get your story straight.
Mike: "...you’ve lost any creditability you may have had."
DAR
With regard to credibility, best to demonstrate it rather than babble on about it.
Oh, and don't worry about my "creditability"[sic]. It's just fine. Last I checked my credit score was 810.
D.
***
Barb: "your life is not your own, it belongs to the Lord...">>
DAR
That may be true. But I have never seen a drop of evidence supporting your claim. Until some comes along I will put all "the Lord" claims in the same pile we both put all claims about the thousands of other gods that for some reason act exactly as we would expect them to *if they didn't exist.*
D.
----------------
"Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms."
--Robert Ingersoll
***
[quote] "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
BLK "Seems very simple, doesn’t it? Two sentences, all to the point, no extra words...">>
DAR
Well if it's so simple, how come you didn't know it's NOT two sentences?
D.
-------------------
“…the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. American children are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm accident than children in these other countries.”
--Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rates of homicide, suicide, and firearm-related deaths among children in 26 industrialized countries. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997; 46 :101 –105
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm
***
If one were going to make the claim that Obama broke "Another Of His Pledges," it would be useful (some might say necessary) to actually show:
a) the pledge you are supposedly talking about and
b) how, specifically, he broke it.
But you completely forgot to include these most important ingredients.
D.
***
BLK: "...as misleading as saying that Dems were all for civil rights-">>
DAR
That would be misleading. Political parties, especially the Dem's, tend to contain a "tent" of ideas with a spectrum of views. At that time the Dem's were full of social CONSERVATIVES. And conservatives have been very consistent in their clinging to the past and opposition to reform in the areas of civil rights as I have shown above.
I said: "Everyone knows this is true," but I immediately followed it with the following challenge:
"...but if it isn’t [true] you shouldn’t have any trouble *burying* me in examples of conservatives pushing for an advancement of these rights against liberal opposition."
When are you going to do that?
BLK: "Didn’t Sen, Byrd used to be a Grand Wizard in the KKK?">>
DAR
Actually, he was "Exalted Cyclops." Can't say conservatives didn't have a sense of humor!
As his wiki blurb states:
"A lifelong Democrat, Byrd did not leave the party as its views shifted from social conservatism to social liberalism."
He also said; "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."
Lester Maddox and George Wallace were, in their day, Demo's. Today they would be, of course, Republicans. Sort of like David Duke.
D.
***
[When did women have to fight for property rights?]
DAR
Seems about 1920 in the US.
See: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_rights">women's rights</a>.
Excerpt: "...the National Woman Suffrage Association, which campaigned for women's suffrage at a federal level as well as for married women to be given property rights, and the American Woman Suffrage Association, which aimed to secure women's suffrage through state legislation. In 1920 the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution gave women the right to vote.[24]"
***
Mike: [wiki excerpts]
DAR
Of course I read the entire wiki article so your extended excerpts are unnecessary and complete irrelevant to your bogus claim, which was, that Kennedy left:
"...someone to drown after an accident without seeking help."
That's not true. So why don't you just be honest and admit your mistake?
MIKE: "[you] said an article I referenced supported your point of view regarding Sweden’s healthcare system.">>
DAR
No, I specifically quoted a statement in the article that we would both agree with. I quoted:
“Like many societies, we went too far in our welfare-state ambitions,” say Borg."
To which I responded:
"He’s right of course. You can go to far. The Swedes probably do, in several categories."
D.
***
MIKE: "Darrel, do you honestly believe that anyone here believes you don’t believe in socialism?">>
DAR
Why on earth would I care what "anyone here believes?" I am not in the least interested in what other people can bring themselves to "believe," I am interested in what people can SHOW. I am not a socialist, I have never been a socialist.
MIKE: "That would make you a socialist.">>
DAR
You are confused. Let's try this. If a group of people are so far to the right that they think all sidewalks should be privatized, and they think publicly owned sidewalks are "socialist," does that make you a socialist if you think it's fine if sidewalks are publicly owned?
I don't think so.
Stop the name calling. It's not useful.
MIKE: "If I believed in socialism I would call myself a socialist,">>
DAR
Label yourself as you wish.
MIKE: "I believe conservative policy helps all classes."
DAR
I know you "believe" that.
MIKE: "The following have been attributed to Abe Lincoln. This is false, but I still believe in them.">>
DAR
Thanks for admitting your quotes are false in advance. Saves me time.
D.
***
BLK: "you like to poke your finger in people’s eyes just to get a reaction.">>
DAR
No, when people make claims, I like to actually check and see if their claims are true. Radical idea I know! But it shouldn't be. People who make a lot of false claims may experience this as a discomforting "poke in the eye." Sorry about that.
You shouldn't be so afraid of the truth.
D.
***
BLK: "I am not as accomplished as you in researching with a computer">>
DAR
Well I would be glad to help you with this. Just ask.
For instance, I went to the zombie cite page and searched it for the word "years." (Control "f" brings up the word search function). This would find all of the instances of the word "years" which would be near any claim regarding "aborting a child up to 2 years old.” Nothing. Then I looked at several far right pages going on about Holdren. Nothing about this. I googled "holdren abort." Again, nothing. That's a fail. Takes just minutes.
D.
***
***
[quote]"...guiding principle... : “To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people.”>>
DAR
Anyone who doesn't believe this can have their opinion changed by a quick visit to India. They could also take a few moments to educate themselves about the history of famine in China.
[quote]"possible government programs that could be used to lower birth rates.">>
DAR
As if, in a places where the birth rate approaches 50 per thousand, this wouldn't be a good thing (the US has a birth rate of 13 per thousand).
The poverty and suffering that comes from this cycle of ignorance and lack of contraception is almost beyond comprehension.
See a list of countries with the highest birth rates here:
http://www.aneki.com/birth.html
As one fellow put it "development is the best contraception."
D.
***
Bigd: "Why the expense and overhaul for such a small group." [uninsured]>>
DAR
Because these uninsured are just one part of the problem. Our run away costs effect our ability to compete as well. Etc.
Bigd: "Surely this can be addressed without affecting those who are not in that small minority.">>
DAR
Even better. This can be addressed while at the same time affecting those, and everyone else in the nation, in a positive way. We all have an interest in an improvement of the health of our fellow citizens. And if we can save money and streamline while doing it, even better. Not better for the parasites feeding on the bloat of current system however.
If you were to lay the uninsured in America (let's say 40 million) end to end they would stretch around the world, at the equator, approximately 1.6 times. We are not talking about an insignificant number of people. And we are paying through the nose right now for their emergency care.
D.
***
Bigd: "The uninsured includes those who were uninsured for a short time...">>
DAR
And it also includes those who are INSURED for a short time. So this cancels out. I fail to grasp why this objection would even be worth mentioning. OF COURSE people are cycling through such a measurement. People drop in, and drop out, as they become employed or lose employment. But this is just statistical noise. A random measurement accounts for this.
Bigd: "About 10 million people... are eligible for some government program...">>
DAR
Some government program that covers what? This is another ridiculous objection I don't get. Of course you are going to have a considerable percentage of people who aren't aware of every little government program. Of course you are going to have a considerable percentage who aren't going to take welfare, or something similar, even though they could.
And we can probably be glad they don't. Because using the current bloated system would simply be feeding the beast and cause us to continue to pay far more than we should.
But this claim about many people being eligible for some government programs doesn't remotely mean this constitutes comprehensive coverage, which is what people need. Otherwise we keep paying for last minute emergency care, and people suffer.
D.
***
BLK: "If you can’t make money off what you discovered, why bother?">>
DAR
Really? You have so prostrated yourself before your god, the almighty dollar, that money is the only motivation you can comprehend? How unfortunate.
Some of the greatest contributions were unlikely to have had monetary motivations. Were Einstein's efforts driven by money? Doubtful. Thomas Paine gave his most popular and important writings away refusing to receive compensation. Etc.
D.
***
BLK: "Despite her popularity, or maybe because of her minimal reaction to this popularity, she has my admiration.... She is still very popular,...">>
DAR
Let's check your claim:
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. July 21-22, 2009
Favorable: 38%
Unfavorable: 51%
http://www.pollingreport.com/p.htm --pollingreport
If this is "very popular" Blake, what would unpopular look like? LOL.
BLK: "...she is their worst nightmare- a conservative feminist."
DAR
Oops, that would be a contradiction. Conservatives are interested in keeping women down as they have been in the past. Feminists are interested in women being treated equal (as they haven't been in the past). See history.
And the real "worst nightmare?" You guys NOT running Palin for anything. Such a waste of talent (err, entertainment) that would be!
D.
***
Good to see Bigd pointing out to dim bulb Blake that Kennedy's point was in fact that it *shouldn't* only be the rich that have such access. Of course, with overwhelming opposition to any sensible effort toward fairness like that, such a thing will be decades away for this country.
GW Bush's wife Laura ran a stop sign and killed someone. I wonder if Blake has spoken so viciously about that mistake too? The question is rhetorical.
D.
***
With strong and proper safe guards in place I am very much in favor of euthanasia being provided by the government for free. We'll get there in a few decades and it will hopefully be routine.
This is a very libertarian idea. That is, that you own your life and can do with it as you wish. We treat our pets better but for some reason, some people can't bring themselves to see that we should give human being this basic dignity.
D.
***
I already read your "zombietime" source when I was trying to confirm your claim. It's not there. Quote where it is.
Momsix asked:
"...where he stated his acceptance of aborting a child up to 2 years old."
My confidence level couldn't be higher that you are wrong. You can't confirm the quote not because you don't have the text book but rather because it doesn't exist. If it did exist, it would be all over the internet (as you know).
D.
***
Bigd: 'Conservatives do not keep women down and they do not have a history of it.">>
DAR
They most certainly do. You couldn't be more wrong. Conservatives cling to the past and fight against progressive change. It's what they do. Their record of doing this couldn't be more clear in the area of women's rights.
Who has consistently worked against voting rights, property rights for women? Conservatives. It's what they do. By definition. They work to conserve the old ways.
The conservatives were consistently on the wrong side of these women's rights issues and many more:
"Women's Educational Equity Act (1972 and 1975, educational equality),... the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (1974), the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, the illegalization of marital rape and the legalization of no-fault divorce in all states, a 1975 law requiring the U.S. Military Academies... [and] the United States Military, NASA, single-sex colleges, men's clubs, etc., to admit women..."
History shows that conservatives are consistently if not always on the WRONG side of these civil/women/human rights issues. Everyone knows this is true, but if it isn't you shouldn't have any trouble *burying* me in examples of conservatives pushing for an advancement of these rights against liberal opposition.
You can't point to one and the fact that I can bury you (and have) in examples going the other way, shows otherwise.
Bigd: "I think are cherry picking. She [Palin] is very popular and will become even more so.">>
DAR
Nope. I just went to pollingreport like I always do and referenced the latest mainstream poll (from FOX nonetheless). She has ALWAYS had very high negatives nationally and she has been trending strongly down in popularity. Reality is once again quite the opposite of your claim.
Since reality isn't going to be adjusting itself to accommodate you (it never does), I recommend you adjust your belief to align with reality instead. That's what I do.
D.
***
Bigd: "he [Ted Kennedy] will not introduce legislation to give everyone the care he has.">>
DAR
Of course not. Why would anyone waste time with something unpassable when, against the entrenched rightwing interests, it is a struggle to get something even moderately sensible passed?
Bigd: "We all have access to health care.">>
DAR
Of course we don't. Don't confuse getting patched up and stabilized in emergency with having comprehensive health care. You should know the difference.
Oh, and we have another 25 million that are underinsured.
Bigd: Why should a 30k a year worker get the same things that Gates can afford?>>
DAR
No one has suggested that. The rich will do fine, as usual. Like your Bill Gates plan? Keep it. The 30k a year worker however, is not doing fine for a country this wealthy. See the example of an insured person at the link above.
D.
***
[Re: Kennedy and Chappaquiddick]
MIKE: Darrell, you’re comparing a tragic auto accident...>>
DAR
To a tragic auto accident.
Mike: "...vs leaving someone to drown after an accident without seeking help.>>
DAR
Perhaps you would be better at diving at night in dark channel waters after a concussion. I doubt it.
And your claim is not correct. He did seek, and get, help. Note:
"Kennedy claimed at the inquest that he called Kopechne's name several times from the shore, then tried to swim down to reach her seven or eight times..."
"Gargan and party co-host Paul Markham then returned to the pond with Kennedy to try to rescue Kopechne. Both of the other men also tried to dive into the water and rescue Kopechne multiple times."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident
Mike: Only you would make such a comparison.>>
DAR
No, I think any reasonable person would make such a comparison. Two unintended auto accidents that resulted in death. One that the far right uses to smear and defame a person with and one that the other side would never use in the same way because it would be in poor taste.
You can bone up on the facts <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquid ... t">here</a> if you want to get your story straight.
Mike: "...you’ve lost any creditability you may have had."
DAR
With regard to credibility, best to demonstrate it rather than babble on about it.
Oh, and don't worry about my "creditability"[sic]. It's just fine. Last I checked my credit score was 810.
D.
***
Barb: "your life is not your own, it belongs to the Lord...">>
DAR
That may be true. But I have never seen a drop of evidence supporting your claim. Until some comes along I will put all "the Lord" claims in the same pile we both put all claims about the thousands of other gods that for some reason act exactly as we would expect them to *if they didn't exist.*
D.
----------------
"Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms."
--Robert Ingersoll
***
[quote] "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
BLK "Seems very simple, doesn’t it? Two sentences, all to the point, no extra words...">>
DAR
Well if it's so simple, how come you didn't know it's NOT two sentences?
D.
-------------------
“…the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. American children are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm accident than children in these other countries.”
--Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rates of homicide, suicide, and firearm-related deaths among children in 26 industrialized countries. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997; 46 :101 –105
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm
***
If one were going to make the claim that Obama broke "Another Of His Pledges," it would be useful (some might say necessary) to actually show:
a) the pledge you are supposedly talking about and
b) how, specifically, he broke it.
But you completely forgot to include these most important ingredients.
D.
***
BLK: "...as misleading as saying that Dems were all for civil rights-">>
DAR
That would be misleading. Political parties, especially the Dem's, tend to contain a "tent" of ideas with a spectrum of views. At that time the Dem's were full of social CONSERVATIVES. And conservatives have been very consistent in their clinging to the past and opposition to reform in the areas of civil rights as I have shown above.
I said: "Everyone knows this is true," but I immediately followed it with the following challenge:
"...but if it isn’t [true] you shouldn’t have any trouble *burying* me in examples of conservatives pushing for an advancement of these rights against liberal opposition."
When are you going to do that?
BLK: "Didn’t Sen, Byrd used to be a Grand Wizard in the KKK?">>
DAR
Actually, he was "Exalted Cyclops." Can't say conservatives didn't have a sense of humor!
As his wiki blurb states:
"A lifelong Democrat, Byrd did not leave the party as its views shifted from social conservatism to social liberalism."
He also said; "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."
Lester Maddox and George Wallace were, in their day, Demo's. Today they would be, of course, Republicans. Sort of like David Duke.
D.
***
[When did women have to fight for property rights?]
DAR
Seems about 1920 in the US.
See: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_rights">women's rights</a>.
Excerpt: "...the National Woman Suffrage Association, which campaigned for women's suffrage at a federal level as well as for married women to be given property rights, and the American Woman Suffrage Association, which aimed to secure women's suffrage through state legislation. In 1920 the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution gave women the right to vote.[24]"
***
Mike: [wiki excerpts]
DAR
Of course I read the entire wiki article so your extended excerpts are unnecessary and complete irrelevant to your bogus claim, which was, that Kennedy left:
"...someone to drown after an accident without seeking help."
That's not true. So why don't you just be honest and admit your mistake?
MIKE: "[you] said an article I referenced supported your point of view regarding Sweden’s healthcare system.">>
DAR
No, I specifically quoted a statement in the article that we would both agree with. I quoted:
“Like many societies, we went too far in our welfare-state ambitions,” say Borg."
To which I responded:
"He’s right of course. You can go to far. The Swedes probably do, in several categories."
D.
***
MIKE: "Darrel, do you honestly believe that anyone here believes you don’t believe in socialism?">>
DAR
Why on earth would I care what "anyone here believes?" I am not in the least interested in what other people can bring themselves to "believe," I am interested in what people can SHOW. I am not a socialist, I have never been a socialist.
MIKE: "That would make you a socialist.">>
DAR
You are confused. Let's try this. If a group of people are so far to the right that they think all sidewalks should be privatized, and they think publicly owned sidewalks are "socialist," does that make you a socialist if you think it's fine if sidewalks are publicly owned?
I don't think so.
Stop the name calling. It's not useful.
MIKE: "If I believed in socialism I would call myself a socialist,">>
DAR
Label yourself as you wish.
MIKE: "I believe conservative policy helps all classes."
DAR
I know you "believe" that.
MIKE: "The following have been attributed to Abe Lincoln. This is false, but I still believe in them.">>
DAR
Thanks for admitting your quotes are false in advance. Saves me time.
D.
***
BLK: "you like to poke your finger in people’s eyes just to get a reaction.">>
DAR
No, when people make claims, I like to actually check and see if their claims are true. Radical idea I know! But it shouldn't be. People who make a lot of false claims may experience this as a discomforting "poke in the eye." Sorry about that.
You shouldn't be so afraid of the truth.
D.
***
BLK: "I am not as accomplished as you in researching with a computer">>
DAR
Well I would be glad to help you with this. Just ask.
For instance, I went to the zombie cite page and searched it for the word "years." (Control "f" brings up the word search function). This would find all of the instances of the word "years" which would be near any claim regarding "aborting a child up to 2 years old.” Nothing. Then I looked at several far right pages going on about Holdren. Nothing about this. I googled "holdren abort." Again, nothing. That's a fail. Takes just minutes.
D.
***
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - July)
JULY 29 - AUGUST 22, 2009
****
[quote] "If you happen to be the 1-in-3 Americans who is neither obese nor overweight..."
DAR
That's an amazing statistic. Two thirds obese or overweight.
I just checked the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in ... ates">rate for Arkansas</a>. 28% obese and 64% overweight. Incredible. When I went to a fourth of July event in a small town, that's exactly what I observed. Nearly everyone was fat or obese. A few old people weren't but being fat/obese does not go well with being old. As Mike Huckabee said in his book: "We are killing ourselves with a knife and a fork."
But this is using the ridiculously fussy BMI index which is controversial (and ancient). I'll have to look into that. I have noticed much less overweight people here in Canada. But then, BC is the thinnest province.
Using the same BMI standard: "23% of Canadians 18 and older were obese and 36% overweight." They aren't in Vancouver.
D.
---------------
"American obesity rates are the highest in the world with 64% of adults being overweight or obese, and 26% are obese.[2] Estimates of the number of obese American adults have been rising steadily, from 19.4% in 1997, 24.5% in 2004[3] to 26.6% in 2007.[4] Should current trends continue, 75% of adults in the US are projected to be overweight and 41% obese by 2015.[5]"
--ibid
***
You are still being vague and not specific. Of course an executive has the right to adjust, provide wavers and "loosen" (as you say) policies to best serve the function of their office, and goals, over time. That is to be expected. Rather than trying to spin this to bash Obama you could instead acknowledge (as many have, even on your side) that [regarding lobbyist reform] he has set and held the bar higher than Bush and previous presidents. And action which is, commendable.
D.
***
Mike: "the 64% overweight in Arkansas includes the 26% you are obese">>
DAR
I think you are right. That's makes more sense. The last sentence I quoted above is a good clue. 75% + 41% tells us they overlap.
MIKE: "I don’t know where you got your figures for Canada">>
DAR
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_o ... ">Canadian obesity</a>.
This source adds them together:
"A 2004 study called the Canadian Community Health Survey found 23% of Canadians 18 and older were obese and 36% more were overweight"
And it notes: "According to Forbes, Canada ranks 35 on a 2007 list of fattest countries with a percentage of 61.1% of its citizens with an unhealthy weight."
http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds ... fat_2.html --Forbes
The US is ninth. It's an interesting list. The US doesn't have any peer/comparable countries around it.
D.
***
All you have is vague unreferenced insults. There are lots of examples of how he has set the bar higher. See this <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... >bloomberg article</a>.
These actions are commendable.
I will be happy to agree he has done something wrong as soon as you demonstrate he has. So far, I hear lots of screeching and bleating but I don't see anyone laying a glove on the guy.
D.
-----------------
"...we don't have a left and a right party in this country any more. We have a center right party, and a crazy party. And over the last thirty odd years, Democrats have moved to the right, and the right has moved into a mental hospital." --Bill Maher
***
[end of life counseling myth]
DAR
Careful readers may note that you don't even attempt to back any of this up.
If they were to assume this is because it's rubbish, they would be right. No quotes, no citation, as usual.
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/200907290047">All nicely debunked here</a>.
***
BLK: "Boone Pickens has said,... plenty of natural gas to power our power plants and our vehicles for at least a hundred years.>>
DAR
I am all for using NG for vehicles but...
a) a hundred years is not very long.
b) estimates of NG reserves vary widely. He is cherry picking the longer numbers and to get this "100 years" for vehicles he is assuming a great amount of NG being switched from electricity generation to vehicles (which may or may not happen).
BLK: Sarah Palin has touted the oil and gas reserves of Alaska... One person is listened to, and the other is ridiculed for saying the same thing">>
DAR
You wish. She was ridiculed because she ignorantly said Alaska: "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy."
The correct answer is:
"Alaska's share of domestic energy production was 3.5 percent, according to the official figures kept by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
And if by "supply" Palin meant all the energy consumed in the U.S., and not just produced here, then Alaska's production accounted for only 2.4 percent."
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... wrong.html
Regarding the Bakken formation, there has long been great optimism and GREAT skepticism about how much oil can actually be extracted. Consider:
"While these numbers would appear to indicate a massive reserve, the percentage of this oil which might be extracted using current technology is another matter. Estimates of the Bakken's technically recoverable oil have ranged from as low as 1% — because the Bakken shale has generally low porosity and low permeability, making the oil difficult to extract — to Leigh Price's estimate of 50% recoverable."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation
D.
***
[Dem's lie about deadline]
Perhaps you don't know what the word "deadline" means. Let me help you out:
1. the time by which something must be finished or submitted; the latest time for finishing something: a five o'clock deadline.
2. a line or limit that must not be passed.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deadline
There is a difference between urging rapid progress and completion before a recess and having a "deadline." So the Senate Democratic leaders were exactly right. As usual, it's you telling the whoppers, and then, rather than quoting the actual person you accuse of dishonesty, quote interpretations of journalists!
Bigd: "...the economy and everything else now belongs to Obama.">>
DAR
As if Bush's actions wouldn't cause a lag factor longer than 7 months. That's silly. Okay, let's pretend. But do remember to apply the proper credit where it goes as he now steers us out of the ditch. Look what his "economy and everything else" just did:
"Profit reports push Dow to best July in 20 years"
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_wall_stre ... A--">AP</a>.
See also:
"The deepest U.S. recession since the Great Depression showed signs of easing in the second quarter, buttressing hopes for a second-half recovery, though it may be anemic as consumers are still strapped for cash."
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090731/bs_ ... 8">Link</a>.
D.
***
Yes. You should have the right to swing your arms until they touch someone else on the nose.
Deciding where the other persons nose begins, is the trick.
Example: Because of the motorcycle lobby, Arkansas dropped it's helmet law (for those over 21). In a way, I like that. Sometimes it's nice to not have to wear a helmet.
But years ago I remember reading that head injuries from motorcycle accidents (to people without insurance I assume) was costing the state of Arkansas about $8 million a year. So the state should have some say in the rules on this since it costs us money.
There are lots of moral dilemmas like this.
D.
***
BLK: "I think Americans would rather go the “great optimism” route...">>
DAR
I recommend the non BS, reality route. But okay, lets pretend. Take your optimistic number of 3.65 billion barrels and divide by 20 million to see how long this reserve will feed just "America's addiction" (GW's Bush's words).
You should get 182 days.
Does that seem like a long time? To see how long it carries the world, divide by 4 (45 days).
BLK: "all of a sudden, a great deal of oil and gas- certainly enough to try to recover."
DAR
Of course we are going to get it. We are going to get it all. We will need every bit of it to provide fertilizers and roads and plastics and jet fuels and lubrication for our electric vehicles. There is no substitute for oil, nothing of comparable energy density. The dumbest thing you can do with it is burn it. Then it's gone. What we don't need to do is go to great extremes to get these last reserves, at bargain prices, so <a href="http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/hea ... 009">mouth breathing birthers</a> can continue to flush it down their Hummers at $2.50 a gallon.
BLK: "in the 1980s revived the economy in those places,">>
DAR
There is more to living on this planet than reviving the economy in isolated places for a few moments. Try to think a little more long term than that.
BLK: "threw Palin in there" [to bug you]
DAR
No response to her energy ignorance noted.
D.
***
BigD: "Is it because it shows he [Obama] was not natural born (which he was not since his daddy was Kenyan and a British subject)...">>
DAR
14th amendment:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Since Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a natural born citizen regardless of who the papa is.
D.
***
DAR
Don't suppose you noticed that your "mofopolitics" cite doesn't provide a link to check their claim. That's okay, the quote is all over the looney right sites but no one else provides a link, or context, either.
Big surprise.
You can read a nice summary of the actual changes/improvements the CMA plans to make here (gasp, they want to improve it? It must not be perfect!):
http://www.cma.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/10043356/la_id/1.htm
Let me know if you find ANYTHING in there regarding looking to the US as an example, in any way, for any thing (they do mention Europe).
LOL.
There's a reason for that btw.
D.
***
MIKE:
This link is absolutely correct as I watched this interview last night.>>
DAR
Your quote is all over the place, on rightwing sites, as I said. But none of them (including the two new ones at your link), refer to a verifiable source. It's just rightwingers passing the same junk around with each other.
And now you are impressed that a guest went on Bill 'O and simply referred to this again?
Let's pretend it's true. It may be. I would like to read the article in question and see some context. But no one has that apparently.
I don't find it all that implausible that an incoming bureaucrat would say there are problems, even a prediction of "implosion," in order to get more money for their department. That's what they do. More power to her.
Compared with the US condition in this area, the US system "imploded" years ago. I say this because we have several states where 1/4th of the population has no insurance at all. Ticking time bombs. Imagine if 1/4 of the people on the road had no insurance. We would never tolerate that.
MIKE:
15% of Canadians do NOT even have a primary care physician.>>
DAR
Explain why that matters. Young people, healthy people, people who live waaaay out in the bushes (think Alaska), some people don't have, or don't choose to have a personal, primary care physician. Big whoop. But guess what? If they do get sick, and they are poor, they can go to a doctor, any doctor (they're all in network), and they will be cared for just like everyone else. That's the way they do it in Canada. And they do it better, for less money, and they cover everyone.
And your claim is spin anyway. Observe:
"...based on 2003 data from the Canadian Community Health Survey,[36] an estimated 1.2 million (5%) of Canadians report that they do not have a regular doctor because they "cannot find" one, and just over twice that number report they do not have one because they "haven't looked."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison ... re_systems
As I suspected.
MIKE:
Canada is 26th out of 28 developed countries for doctors per population.>>
DAR
Another unsourced claim you heard on the Tee Vee. Show why this matters. Canada would like to have more doctors, so would the US. Especially in rural areas. What would you recommend? Force doctors to move into unpopulated areas?
MIKE:
One million waiting for surgeries and another million waiting for specialists.>>
DAR
A completely meaningless claim (again unsourced) considering it does not include the necessary context of:
a) how long they have been waiting
b) how fast they cycle through
Perhaps you should be a little more skeptical of your propaganda before you pass it along?
D.
****
[quote] "If you happen to be the 1-in-3 Americans who is neither obese nor overweight..."
DAR
That's an amazing statistic. Two thirds obese or overweight.
I just checked the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in ... ates">rate for Arkansas</a>. 28% obese and 64% overweight. Incredible. When I went to a fourth of July event in a small town, that's exactly what I observed. Nearly everyone was fat or obese. A few old people weren't but being fat/obese does not go well with being old. As Mike Huckabee said in his book: "We are killing ourselves with a knife and a fork."
But this is using the ridiculously fussy BMI index which is controversial (and ancient). I'll have to look into that. I have noticed much less overweight people here in Canada. But then, BC is the thinnest province.
Using the same BMI standard: "23% of Canadians 18 and older were obese and 36% overweight." They aren't in Vancouver.
D.
---------------
"American obesity rates are the highest in the world with 64% of adults being overweight or obese, and 26% are obese.[2] Estimates of the number of obese American adults have been rising steadily, from 19.4% in 1997, 24.5% in 2004[3] to 26.6% in 2007.[4] Should current trends continue, 75% of adults in the US are projected to be overweight and 41% obese by 2015.[5]"
--ibid
***
You are still being vague and not specific. Of course an executive has the right to adjust, provide wavers and "loosen" (as you say) policies to best serve the function of their office, and goals, over time. That is to be expected. Rather than trying to spin this to bash Obama you could instead acknowledge (as many have, even on your side) that [regarding lobbyist reform] he has set and held the bar higher than Bush and previous presidents. And action which is, commendable.
D.
***
Mike: "the 64% overweight in Arkansas includes the 26% you are obese">>
DAR
I think you are right. That's makes more sense. The last sentence I quoted above is a good clue. 75% + 41% tells us they overlap.
MIKE: "I don’t know where you got your figures for Canada">>
DAR
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_o ... ">Canadian obesity</a>.
This source adds them together:
"A 2004 study called the Canadian Community Health Survey found 23% of Canadians 18 and older were obese and 36% more were overweight"
And it notes: "According to Forbes, Canada ranks 35 on a 2007 list of fattest countries with a percentage of 61.1% of its citizens with an unhealthy weight."
http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds ... fat_2.html --Forbes
The US is ninth. It's an interesting list. The US doesn't have any peer/comparable countries around it.
D.
***
All you have is vague unreferenced insults. There are lots of examples of how he has set the bar higher. See this <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... >bloomberg article</a>.
These actions are commendable.
I will be happy to agree he has done something wrong as soon as you demonstrate he has. So far, I hear lots of screeching and bleating but I don't see anyone laying a glove on the guy.
D.
-----------------
"...we don't have a left and a right party in this country any more. We have a center right party, and a crazy party. And over the last thirty odd years, Democrats have moved to the right, and the right has moved into a mental hospital." --Bill Maher
***
[end of life counseling myth]
DAR
Careful readers may note that you don't even attempt to back any of this up.
If they were to assume this is because it's rubbish, they would be right. No quotes, no citation, as usual.
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/200907290047">All nicely debunked here</a>.
***
BLK: "Boone Pickens has said,... plenty of natural gas to power our power plants and our vehicles for at least a hundred years.>>
DAR
I am all for using NG for vehicles but...
a) a hundred years is not very long.
b) estimates of NG reserves vary widely. He is cherry picking the longer numbers and to get this "100 years" for vehicles he is assuming a great amount of NG being switched from electricity generation to vehicles (which may or may not happen).
BLK: Sarah Palin has touted the oil and gas reserves of Alaska... One person is listened to, and the other is ridiculed for saying the same thing">>
DAR
You wish. She was ridiculed because she ignorantly said Alaska: "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy."
The correct answer is:
"Alaska's share of domestic energy production was 3.5 percent, according to the official figures kept by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
And if by "supply" Palin meant all the energy consumed in the U.S., and not just produced here, then Alaska's production accounted for only 2.4 percent."
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... wrong.html
Regarding the Bakken formation, there has long been great optimism and GREAT skepticism about how much oil can actually be extracted. Consider:
"While these numbers would appear to indicate a massive reserve, the percentage of this oil which might be extracted using current technology is another matter. Estimates of the Bakken's technically recoverable oil have ranged from as low as 1% — because the Bakken shale has generally low porosity and low permeability, making the oil difficult to extract — to Leigh Price's estimate of 50% recoverable."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation
D.
***
[Dem's lie about deadline]
Perhaps you don't know what the word "deadline" means. Let me help you out:
1. the time by which something must be finished or submitted; the latest time for finishing something: a five o'clock deadline.
2. a line or limit that must not be passed.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deadline
There is a difference between urging rapid progress and completion before a recess and having a "deadline." So the Senate Democratic leaders were exactly right. As usual, it's you telling the whoppers, and then, rather than quoting the actual person you accuse of dishonesty, quote interpretations of journalists!
Bigd: "...the economy and everything else now belongs to Obama.">>
DAR
As if Bush's actions wouldn't cause a lag factor longer than 7 months. That's silly. Okay, let's pretend. But do remember to apply the proper credit where it goes as he now steers us out of the ditch. Look what his "economy and everything else" just did:
"Profit reports push Dow to best July in 20 years"
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_wall_stre ... A--">AP</a>.
See also:
"The deepest U.S. recession since the Great Depression showed signs of easing in the second quarter, buttressing hopes for a second-half recovery, though it may be anemic as consumers are still strapped for cash."
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090731/bs_ ... 8">Link</a>.
D.
***
Yes. You should have the right to swing your arms until they touch someone else on the nose.
Deciding where the other persons nose begins, is the trick.
Example: Because of the motorcycle lobby, Arkansas dropped it's helmet law (for those over 21). In a way, I like that. Sometimes it's nice to not have to wear a helmet.
But years ago I remember reading that head injuries from motorcycle accidents (to people without insurance I assume) was costing the state of Arkansas about $8 million a year. So the state should have some say in the rules on this since it costs us money.
There are lots of moral dilemmas like this.
D.
***
BLK: "I think Americans would rather go the “great optimism” route...">>
DAR
I recommend the non BS, reality route. But okay, lets pretend. Take your optimistic number of 3.65 billion barrels and divide by 20 million to see how long this reserve will feed just "America's addiction" (GW's Bush's words).
You should get 182 days.
Does that seem like a long time? To see how long it carries the world, divide by 4 (45 days).
BLK: "all of a sudden, a great deal of oil and gas- certainly enough to try to recover."
DAR
Of course we are going to get it. We are going to get it all. We will need every bit of it to provide fertilizers and roads and plastics and jet fuels and lubrication for our electric vehicles. There is no substitute for oil, nothing of comparable energy density. The dumbest thing you can do with it is burn it. Then it's gone. What we don't need to do is go to great extremes to get these last reserves, at bargain prices, so <a href="http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/hea ... 009">mouth breathing birthers</a> can continue to flush it down their Hummers at $2.50 a gallon.
BLK: "in the 1980s revived the economy in those places,">>
DAR
There is more to living on this planet than reviving the economy in isolated places for a few moments. Try to think a little more long term than that.
BLK: "threw Palin in there" [to bug you]
DAR
No response to her energy ignorance noted.
D.
***
BigD: "Is it because it shows he [Obama] was not natural born (which he was not since his daddy was Kenyan and a British subject)...">>
DAR
14th amendment:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Since Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a natural born citizen regardless of who the papa is.
D.
***
DAR
Don't suppose you noticed that your "mofopolitics" cite doesn't provide a link to check their claim. That's okay, the quote is all over the looney right sites but no one else provides a link, or context, either.
Big surprise.
You can read a nice summary of the actual changes/improvements the CMA plans to make here (gasp, they want to improve it? It must not be perfect!):
http://www.cma.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/10043356/la_id/1.htm
Let me know if you find ANYTHING in there regarding looking to the US as an example, in any way, for any thing (they do mention Europe).
LOL.
There's a reason for that btw.
D.
***
MIKE:
This link is absolutely correct as I watched this interview last night.>>
DAR
Your quote is all over the place, on rightwing sites, as I said. But none of them (including the two new ones at your link), refer to a verifiable source. It's just rightwingers passing the same junk around with each other.
And now you are impressed that a guest went on Bill 'O and simply referred to this again?
Let's pretend it's true. It may be. I would like to read the article in question and see some context. But no one has that apparently.
I don't find it all that implausible that an incoming bureaucrat would say there are problems, even a prediction of "implosion," in order to get more money for their department. That's what they do. More power to her.
Compared with the US condition in this area, the US system "imploded" years ago. I say this because we have several states where 1/4th of the population has no insurance at all. Ticking time bombs. Imagine if 1/4 of the people on the road had no insurance. We would never tolerate that.
MIKE:
15% of Canadians do NOT even have a primary care physician.>>
DAR
Explain why that matters. Young people, healthy people, people who live waaaay out in the bushes (think Alaska), some people don't have, or don't choose to have a personal, primary care physician. Big whoop. But guess what? If they do get sick, and they are poor, they can go to a doctor, any doctor (they're all in network), and they will be cared for just like everyone else. That's the way they do it in Canada. And they do it better, for less money, and they cover everyone.
And your claim is spin anyway. Observe:
"...based on 2003 data from the Canadian Community Health Survey,[36] an estimated 1.2 million (5%) of Canadians report that they do not have a regular doctor because they "cannot find" one, and just over twice that number report they do not have one because they "haven't looked."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison ... re_systems
As I suspected.
MIKE:
Canada is 26th out of 28 developed countries for doctors per population.>>
DAR
Another unsourced claim you heard on the Tee Vee. Show why this matters. Canada would like to have more doctors, so would the US. Especially in rural areas. What would you recommend? Force doctors to move into unpopulated areas?
MIKE:
One million waiting for surgeries and another million waiting for specialists.>>
DAR
A completely meaningless claim (again unsourced) considering it does not include the necessary context of:
a) how long they have been waiting
b) how fast they cycle through
Perhaps you should be a little more skeptical of your propaganda before you pass it along?
D.
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - July)
AUGUST 23 -- SEPTEMBER 2, 2009
***
MIKE: Darrel, Dr Day,... is past president of the Canadian Medical Association. Those are his figures regarding waiting lines.>>
DAR
Did you not understand my point that mentioning how many people are on a line does not tell you how fast the line is moving?
As I have said before, Canada has some longer waits for some procedures, in some areas (each province is different). I have never argued that Canada has the best health care in the world. I don't know if they would even be in the top ten. But Canada's system is not being considered for the US.
Presumably all of this lying about and bashing of the Canadian system from the right is going on because they wish to compare the US to Canada's. That's stupid because Canada's system, with all of it's warts, wins. As I have documented over and over with extensive citation (and will gladly post again), it gets better results, has higher satisfaction rates, covers everyone and does so for much less cost. That's better. That's a win.
Now, you wish to make the point that Canada doesn't have enough doctors. Then you ignore my question about what should be done about this.
I pretty much agree with Dr. Day. Regarding rationing, <a href="http://www.brianday.ca/">he gave a lecture last year</a> and made this point:
"Countries like Switzerland, Austria, France, Belgium, Germany and others do not ration or deny access in the Canadian manner."
Read the context at my link. In saying this he was recommending Canada look to *these* countries to modify the Canadian system and improve wait times. These countries have medical systems that are FAR MORE socialized than Canada's. (note: Canada's system has socialized insurance and private doctors.)
Notice he didn't mention the US. Notice he does not support changing the Canadian system to the US's. Why? Because that would be ridiculous. Laughable. In the US system, if you need surgery or have a chronic condition that needs treatment and don't have insurance, or the money, you don't get put on a waiting list, you go home and wait to die.
This happens to about 18,000 people a year. It's a national disgrace, and no country looks to such a system as a model to copy. Especially Canada.
When I was in Canada for the last month I asked many people, about a dozen, specifically, if they had "experienced, or knew of anyone first hand who had ever experienced what they would consider an unreasonable wait time for an important surgery or medical procedure."
These were adults, aged 40-70, with children. All of these people, representing hundreds of concurrent years lived in Canada, said no, except for one.
Now isn't that curious? If this was a such a rampant problem, you would think these people would know of first hand examples.
I personally know of lots of US disaster cases. My brother and his wife went bankrupt when his insurance company went bankrupt and they got stuck with a large bill.
And this fellow's example I mentioned above? He knew of someone who had been diagnosed with a heart condition and got in line for surgery. It was not deemed serious enough to be done immediately. He said the fellow was very worried during this time. I understand. The end result? This man received his surgery and all was well. His fears were misplaced.
And this was his best, and only, example. All the rest didn't know of any.
D.
***
BD: If you get hit by a truck automobile insurance handles it.>>
DAR
No. You're wrong. That doesn't follow. You don't know what you are talking about.
BD: I should not have to pay for someone else’s health care (or anything else).>>
DAR
Tell that to Blake. You're paying for his.
BD: All of our government run medical care is in shambles.>>
DAR
Tell that to this person:
“How many here have actually worked in military medicine? The care is the best in the world, the administrative side and the costs leave little to be desired. Military medicine is a bit of a specialty of mine.”
--Big Dog, Monday Jun 15th, 2009 at 23:09
Note: "Military medicine" is "government run medical care." Please try to remember that.
BD: They are broke and going bankrupt.>>
DAR
They are vastly more efficient than any for profit private system (which is why we took them over) and are inevitably the way of the future.
I bought this fellows book today (author of the article I linked to) since I am preparing for a lecture on this topic this weekend. He notes:
"The United States is the only developed country that relies on profit-making health insurance companies to pay for essential and elective care.... all the other developed countries have decided that basic health insurance must be a nonprofit operation."
--The Healing of America, A global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care. Pg. 36
Private, for profit insurance (without government cost controls) are dinosaurs and will soon be gone.
Oh, and that howler you like to float about the US have the best health care in the world? He rips that one to SHREDS. Wow.
BD: The government can only get money by taxing us and these countries with all the “free” health care are going broke.>>
DAR
Again, you haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. You don't even know where to begin (for starters, no one has "free" health care). As to who is going broke, it's not even close.
Health Expenditure as a percentage of GDP:
(2005)
US 15.3 (now 17%)
Swiss 11.6
France 11.1
Germany 10.7
Canada 9.8
etc. Obviously, we are going broke faster, by a long shot, than any other nation. All to feed the greed.
BD: There are plenty of free market ways to fix the problems in health care.>>
DAR
Actually, they're aren't. Nice mantra though.
D.
---------------------
"But for all their problems, the other industrialized countries tend to do better than the United states on basic measures of health system performance: coverage, quality, cost control, choice. This was the most surprising and infuriating discovery of my global quest--that the US performs so poorly in this fundamental area of human life. In industry, finance, music, science, arts, academics, athletics, Americans can match or surpass any other country. Why can't we do that when it comes to health care?" --ibid, pg. 27
***
BLK: "it is NOT a death panel, it’s a death magazine.">>
DAR
Of course it's completely dishonest to try to smear Obama with this supposed "death magazine" considering... "the pamphlet in question was commissioned by the Bush administration, and discontinued in 2007. The Obama administration has had nothing to do with this."
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/csp ... amphlet-na
Does Blake ever get tired of swimming in his sea of lies?
D.
***
BLK: "I have never sucked off of anyone else’s medical care,>>
DAR
You do it every minute of every day.
BLK: nor will I, although if you care to add me to your policy,>>
DAR
I already have. Your emergency comprehensive coverage is already built into the cost of the premium I pay every month. I, and everyone else who pays for insurance in America, is paying this cost for covering you.
Excerpt:
"Everyone in Japan is required to sign up with a health insurance plan. This is a "personal mandate,".... Every nation that relies on health insurance has that requirement (except the USA), and in Japan the mandate is not controversial at all. "It's considered an element of personal responsibility, that you insure yourself against health care costs," Dr. Ikegami told me. "And who can be against personal responsibility?" --ibid, pg. 87
Freeloaders, that's who.
D.
-------------------
"We are the only nation in the modern industrialized world, among other free-market democracies that: 1) Doesn't cover every citizen in their basic health care needs, 2) Has the misfortune that if you lose your job, you lose your health insurance (just when you need it the most), 3) Makes a PROFIT on the basic health care needs of its citizens, to the point where people can't even afford it, and 4) where insurance providers/companies can CANCEL your current insurance."
***
BLK: "looking out my window at the freest,"
DAR
See that myth dismantled <a href="http://fayfreethinkers.com/mythbuster/a ... l">here</a>.
If your so free, why can't you go to Cuba?
In freedom of the press, the US ranks 17th.
A dozen countries offer more freedom to gays.
etc.
BLK: most peaceful country on Earth,>>
DAR
This is studied carefully and we have a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Pea ... easurement of this</a>. The most peaceful country, this year, is New Zealand. Out of about 140 countries, the US comes in embarrasingly low compared to similar peer countries. 83rd place.
Norway - 2
Denmark - 3
Austria - 5
Sweden - 6
Japan - 7
Canada - 8
BLK: Al Gore justifies using his private jet,>>
DAR
Al Gore doesn't have a private jet. Al Gore has never had a private jet.
BLK: and his fleet of SUVs,>>
DAR
Al Gore doesn't have a fleet of SUV's.
BLK: "the “Diversity” Czar, are seeking ways to control and shut down, (if they wish) the Internet">>
DAR
No they aren't.
BLK: "that pig of a dictator, Hugo Chavez">>
DAR
Hugo Chavez was democratically elected in 1998 with 56% of the vote.
It seems to me that if you had good arguments for your beliefs you would use those rather than appeal to a constant stream of insultingly false information.
D.
***
[Obama appointed Jones and he is a Commie]
"Jones ended his involvement with STORM (and STORM officially dissolved in December 2002).[18]
By the late 1990s, Jones began promoting capitalism as he transformed into an environmentally friendly capitalist. He emerged as one of the foremost champions of green business, entrepreneurship and market-based solutions. In his 2008 best seller The Green Collar Economy, Jones contended that invention and investment will take us out of a pollution-based grey economy and into a healthy new green economy."
Make sure and see his long list of<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones">Awards and Honors</a>. Quite a guy.
D.
***
BLK: "“slippery slope is a logical fallacy”- not so.">>
DAR
The "slippery slope" argument is a classical informal fallacy.
BLK: "there will always be ignorant people. hat’s[sic] just a fact.>>
DAR
Indeed.
D.
**
MK: "Darrel, I don’t even know where to begin.>>
DAR
That's pretty obvious.
MK: I gave the example of New Zealand compared with Antarctica.>>
DAR
Antarctica isn't a country, so it's not in the running, and not relevant.
MK: New Zealand is number one because it has no neighbors, period.>>
DAR
It's not clear why you think proximity to a neighbor would have anything whatsoever to do with a countries "peacefulness." (Hint: it doesn't)
Incidentally, New Zealand also ranks highly in categories such as:
"human development, quality of life, life expectancy, literacy, public education, peace, prosperity, economic freedom, ease of doing business, lack of corruption, press freedom,..."
MK: Austria and Japan, WWII.>>
DAR
If Blake was making his claim 70 years ago, you would have a point. Since he was looking out his window and dreaming about his "most peaceful country on earth" yesterday, you don't.
MK: And Canada would be equal with New Zealand if it didn’t supply a few troops to the UN.>>
DAR
It's not clear why you think a country donating peace-keeping forces to the UN would hurt a countries rating in a measurement of it's "peacefulness." That's backwards.
MK: It only shares a border with the US, no war there.>>
DAR
Right. So there goes your assertion about countries being hurt on the scale because of distance from other countries. Canada is ranked 8, the US, 83rd.
MK: Al Gore flying a non commercial jet video:>>
DAR
The claim I was addressing had nothing to do with whether Al Gore has ever flown in a non-commercial jet.
You have yet to show that Mr. Gore has said people shouldn't fly in jets, private or otherwise.
I gave you two premises you need to support if you want to even begin to get your charge of hypocrisy off the ground. You need *both* of them and you don't even attempt to support either one of them.
Incidentally, even if you could show he has a private jet (you can't), or that he has claimed people shouldn't fly in jets (he hasn't), your argument would still be undermined by the fact that he purchases carbon offsets to compensate for the carbon he does use.
But you didn't even make it that far.
D.
***
DAR: That’s pretty obvious.>>
MK: That’s it, Darrel, resort to name calling when you cannot make your argument.>>
DAR
Name calling? What name did I call you? Do tell. Actually, you said you didn't know where to begin and I simply agreed with you.
MK: I stated Antarctica isn’t a country.>>
DAR
Good for you. Then you should know how profoundly stupid it would be to bring up a continent when discussing ratings of "countries."
MK: The example was its remoteness.>>
DAR
Since it's a continent and not a country, it's remoteness is irrelevant.
Hey Mike, Denmark ranks #2. It's surrounded by countries. Last I checked, Canada was just as far from the US, as the US is from Canada. Yet the rankings are #8 and #83 respectively. And of course Australia is just as remote as New Zealand. Obviously, "remoteness" is a canard and has nothing whatsoever to do with this.
MK: [Austria and Japan] have chosen isolation in response to their participation in WWII.>>
DAR
Japan, the second largest economy in the world, has "chosen isolation?" That's a good one. Actually, they have just chosen to be peaceful.
MK: By doing so [supply a few troops to the UN] Canada is participating in a war.>>
DAR
You are confused. They are participating in keeping peace. I bet this is even why they call them "peace keepers."
MK: His [Gore's] hypocrisy is advocating against global warming and then using private jets, burning more fuel.>>
DAR
I guess you have given upon trying to support your claim, and defend Blakes falsehoods, about him owning a private jet.
Nor have you shown where he has spoken against people flying.
Al Gore has been an effective educator about the science of climate change. Some like to pretend that he has to ride to his presentations on a bicycle or in a row boat, but this isn't the case. It's quite possible to teach people about the science of climate change while at the same time making use of modern transportation.
If you would like to make a case for your charge of hypocrisy, I have shown you what you need to do. There's a reason why you can't do it, and won't even try. You got nothing.
MK: So he can afford to buy carbon offsets. That makes it OK.>>
DAR
Yep.
MK: And since YOU reverted to name calling>>
DAR
What name did I call you? Is "Mike" not correct?
MK: why you are living here?>>
DAR
I like the weather. And the ratio of silly people is a little out of whack. So I try to help out when I can.
MK: "You chose to leave your beloved Canada live in the U.S. and then bash the U.S.>>
DAR
I tell the truth about countries. This causes some discomfort for those invested in myths about their tribe.
As I have mentioned before, I'm not too big on the whole tribalism thing. As Paine famously put it:
"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion."
The whole nationalism thing is over rated and too often unproductive. Best to just be honest and work to improve the environment you're in. Leave the pep rallies for the kiddies.
MK: Why don’t you go home?>>
DAR
Planet earth is my home. But if I lived across this temporary political line we've made up, in Canada, that wouldn't save you from getting the good shellacking you deserve. They have fast internet there too (partially thanks to Al Gore of course).
D.
-----------------
"In his private life, Gore tries to reduce his emissions as much as possible. He drives a hybrid, flies commercially whenever he can, and purchases green power. In the few instances where work has demanded that he travel privately, he purchases carbon offsets for the emissions."
--Spokesperson responding to a smear campaign by Hannity in '07, which you appear to be parroting.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/16/hannity-gore/ --Think Progress.
Further roast here: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/18/hannity-pathetic/ --‘Proud’ Polluter Sean Hannity Launches Pathetic Smear Attack Against Al Gore.
***
It's a safe bet that the 195,000 that have been trained by the Peace Corp (currently 7,876) to work for peace are not the war monger chicken hawk types.
The '09 budget for the Peace Corp was <a href="http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?she ... acts">$340 million</a>.
That's about five hours of money flush in Iraq alone.
So some priorities appear to be out of whack.
D.
**
BigD: Who is the chicken hawk,>>
DAR
You can see a nice, extensive, list of them <a href="http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about ... l">here</a>.
Bigd: the guy in there now who never served>>
DAR
Nope. Didn't support the war. Not a hawk, thus, can't be a "chickenhawk."
Bigd: but is increasing troops and fighting the war?>>
DAR
Pull out of Bush's quagmire in Iraq is <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/2 ... 6.html">on schedule</a>.
Afghanistan? That ball was dropped when the focus was shifted to that country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (contrary to about what about 1/2 of the republicans erroneously believe).
6,001 US killed in both as of yesterday.
That's 2x 9/11.
D.
-----------------
"George F. Will, the elite conservative commentator, will call in his next column for U.S. ground troops to leave Afghanistan, according to publishing sources."
<a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/08 ... a">link</a>.
He's on the list. Under "mouthpieces."
***
Bigd: So this little political piece is supposed to be a list of Chickenhawks?>>
DAR
Correct. They are chickens (didn't serve), and hawks (war promoters/supporters/mongers). That's the two requirements to be a chickenhawk.
Bigd: Bush served and honorably so.>>
DAR
No, he used his connections to get his fanny in the guard so he could avoid the war. Then he didn't show up.
Note:
"In fairness, Bush has been candid about why he enlisted in the Air National Guard. Like many young men of his generation, he wanted to avoid Vietnam. He told one reporter, "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."
--http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4114162/
Bush = Chicken + hawk.
Thus, he's a chickenhawk.
Bigd: I know all you lefties think he went AWOL but he did not. He served his time.>>
DAR
He hasn't even started serving his time yet. That wouldn't be until after the conviction.
BigD: Would you label him [Clinton] as such?>>
DAR
Nope. Not a hawk. You can call him a chicken, but no one but a partisan hack reaching for straws would label him a hawk.
Bigd: is he [Obama] a CH.>>
DAR
Nope. Not a hawk. He is cleaning up after Bush disasters as best as possible. As promised. It's the responsible thing to do.
Bigd: You can blame it on Bush but this is Obama’s war now.>>
DAR
These will always be Bush's wars (read disasters). Wear them with pride.
Bigd: Iraq had ties to the folks who planned and implemented 9/11.>>
DAR
No it didn't. That's just rightwing, rubbish. Saddam hated al-Qaida.
No one has more interest in pushing that howler than this guy, but even he admits:
"Former Vice President Dick Cheney says there was “never any evidence” that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq played any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/06 ... z0Pra0UotC
Another example of how those on the right were, and are, serially misinformed by the dishonest on the right:
***
"Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year [2002], attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens."
The answer is zero."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html --Christian Science Monitor
Bigd: But Iraq was not about 9/11 which many on the left seem to think.>>
DAR
Of course it was. Where did so many Americans get the following, erroneous belief?
"A New York Times/CBS poll this week [2003] shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago." --ibid
Bigd: It was about WMD and regime change...>>
DAR
Right. Which was a bunch of hooey.
"This isn't an issue about intentions or what the hopes were or what the plans were or what the programs were. What took us to war were statements about Saddam's WMDs
and the threat of their imminent use."
--Sen. Carl Levin
The threat was bogus, their "imminent use" a falsehood used to promote a baseless war.
Bigd: as well as forcing compliance with UN resolutions...>>
DAR
We don't care about those. Israel goes against them all the time.
Bigd: many of the politicians on the left actually spoke about taking out Hussein...>>
DAR
Politicans running their mouths. They didn't do it, so they don't get the blame. Bush did it, so he gets the blame.
D.
-------------------
"President Bush made a comment a week ago, and he said 'bring it on.' Well, they brought it on, and now my nephew is dead." --Mary Kewatt, aunt of a soldier killed in Iraq, Minnesota Public Radio
Bush likes to talk tough when other people are doing the dying. That's what chickenhawks do.
***
MK: Look up condescending in the dictionary.>>
DAR
I did. It isn't "name calling." Why do you say one thing when you mean the other?
MK: The example [Antarctica] was its remoteness.>>
DAR
The example is ludicrous. An examination of the list of countries does not show a correlation between peacefulness and closeness to other countries. Austria shares large borders with 7 countries. It's #5.
DAR: Hey Mike, Denmark ranks #2. It’s surrounded by countries.>>
MK: It shares a border with ONE country.>>
DAR
Let me draw you... http://www.yourchildlearns.com/europe_map.htm --a picture.
Look at the top ten. They have neighbors, lots and lots of them.
MK: The site you source states:
"...the weighting of military expenditure “may seem to give heart to freeloaders: countries that enjoy peace precisely because others (often the USA) care for their defense.”
DAR
That's one category. And I agree. Countries do freeload on massive US overspending. Especially Canada.
MK: The U.S. improved from 96 to 83 while Canada remained the same. I will acknowledge it is easier to improve from a higher number.>>
DAR
Let's remember that the actual claim in question I was addressing was that the US is the "most peaceful country on Earth."
I wouldn't even have made a fuss if it was in the top ten. I wish it could make the top twenty.
MK: His private jets refer to his leasing private jets.>>
DAR
Here was the original claim: "Al Gore justifies using his private jet..."
Al Gore doesn't have a private jet, nor has he ever condemned people flying in private jets. He flies commercial when he can.
MK: Please don’t tell me he flies commercial.>>
DAR
To late. Already did. He flies commercial. Get informed. Almost everything the right says and too often believes about Al Gore, is wrong.
MK: Cool, then we can pollute all we want. Just buy carbon offsets.>>
DAR
No, your distorting the claim. No one has said "we can pollute all we want." Buying offsets is a useful stop gap to make up for when excess carbon is used. This reduces a persons carbon "footprint." Buying them is better than not.
MK: Ah, yes, the inventor.>>
DAR
He never said that of course. A little side note. I have been swatting down lies and smears about Al Gore for years. Originally I investigated them innocently enough. This was when I learned just how profoundly dishonest the US media and general discussion is in this country. It's really quite amazing that this is tolerated. I have yet to see a Gore smear that actually holds up. The attacks against him represent an astonishing and in my experience a perfect record of distortion and dishonesty.
And that's too bad.
MK: What part [of Canada] are you from?>>
DAR
In Toronto until 9, then British Columbia until 21.
D.
***
Ben and Jerry sold to the multi-national Unilever in 2000.
"Although the founders are still engaged with the company, they do not hold any board or management position and are not involved in day-to-day management of the company."
As your "Hubby Hubby" link says:
“From the very beginning of our 30 year history, we have supported equal rights for all people. The legalisation of marriage for gay and lesbian couples in Vermont is certainly a step in the right direction and something worth celebrating with peace, love and plenty of ice cream.”
Good for them.
Gay equality is the way of the future. Observe... http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/l ... y%20rights --this graph.
In twenty years or so, suggesting gays shouldn't be allowed equal rights with regard to marriage or anything else, will be as strange as saying today that left handed people shouldn't have equal rights with regard to marriage or anything else.
D.
***
[Obama wants control of the Internet, may shut it down]
DAR
Dear Blake, you couldn't use your little paranoid imagination to conjure up a reason why it might be appropriate to shut the internet off for a bit?
Think about it.
What if we learned some boogie man was going to trigger a bomb via an internet connection? Or a computer virus/worm attack of new and ultra scary proportions?
It might be useful to have a temporary off switch (which would probably never be used) and it only makes sense that the person who would take the heat for such an action would be the fellow at the top.
A fellow who is entrusted with the nuke certainly can handle the responsibility of not abusing an internet off switch.
If it happened, then you would have a reason to whine.
And don't worry, it wouldn't be for long. Politicians thrive on being liked and the power that comes from being liked. People wouldn't like to have their internet off for very long. After all, what would you conservatives do if you couldn't GET YOUR PORN?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680 --Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers.
D.
***
BLK: "Nuclear energy hasn’t even been uttered-">>
DAR
It's uttered all the time and will be a part of our energy future. Personally, I'm a fan.
BLK: [nuke] the cleanest source of energy we can get,>
DAR
Not remotely. Solar thermal is cleaner. Wind is cleaner. Solar photo-voltaic is cleaner. Geothermal is cleaner. Hydro-electric is cleaner. Etc.
And nuclear is non-renewable. Uranium has to be mined and this involves all of the standard nastiness that goes with mining.
And then there is the waste we haven't completely figured out with to do with yet.
BLK: and people will not even speak of it- now there is true hypocrisy.>>
DAR
Nuclear currently provides 19% of our juice. Getting more online is a big deal and very expensive.
BLK: Couple that with the refusal of the Federal government to drill off of our coasts>>
DAR
The "federal government" doesn't have "coasts." States do. Why do you still refuse to answer this question:
What do we do when states say no to coastal drilling? Bring in Federal troops and take over the state?
I bet you'd love that. And then your Beck would actually have something to cry and get excited about.
D.
***
BLK: "Canada, the Land of the Draft Dodger">>
DAR
As a tee shirt I have says: "Canadians Draft Beer, not soldiers."
Canada has never had a draft. When you actually have a legitimate reason to go to war, it usually is the case that the people will come forward to do what is necessary.
Drafting kids to go to a war like Vietnam, (a war that McNamara admits they knew was lost before most soldiers died*), was immoral and you should be ashamed of this history.
D.
*See "The Fog of War" (best documentary 2003)
***
Bigd: I know it is tough for you Darrel because personal responsibility is not a strong point>>
DAR
That you would say this only shows that you don't know me. Best to not speak about things you don't know.
Bigd: Without the votes Bush could never have gone in.>>
DAR
They made the mistake of trusting him when he said he wanted to use such approval as leverage when he went the UN and that he would only use force as a last resort. That was a lie and their mistake was to trust him.
Bigd: Bush served... it means he is not a Chicken.>>
DAR
He hid out in the Guard as so many did in that day. I have no problem with this with regard to the Vietnam war, unless you're also a war hawk, which he is. Because this makes him a chickenhawk.
Rather ironic that Bush took this away and gladly sent those fellows who signed up for the National Guard and it's "One weekend a month, two weeks a year" and sent them to Iraq for up to two years. As if we needed to be guarded from Iraq. What farce.
Bigd: "I also NEVER said that Iraq played a role in 9/11 only that it had ties to the people involved.>>
DAR
Yes, I am well aware of how you used this vague, undefined and nearly vacuous term "ties." It's a carefully chosen code word that makes it seem like you are saying something when you aren't.
One person, a "terrorist associate" had a broken leg and pulled some strings to stay in Iraq, a country of 27 million people, for a while. That's all you have. It's laughable to call this "ties," but it's all you have.
Bigd: Hussein and OBL had communications>>
DAR
OBL called Saddam and was ignored. There's your communication. This was debunked in 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jun16.html --Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed.
Bigd: Clinton pushed for war in Bosnia>>
DAR
Early in July, you said this wasn't a "war." I guess you've changed your position.
Anyway, Clinton isn't a hawk by any stretch. He had a choice between the two evils of allowing genocide, and dropping some bombs, mostly on infrastructure. He chose the latter and it was very successful. That doesn't make him a war hawk. If Clinton was a war hawk (and he wasn't), then he would be a chicken hawk. Bush was a war hawk/monger, and a chicken, thus a "chickenhawk."
Bigd: "who are you to determine if any of these people who got deferrments deserved them or not?"
DAR
Cheney, major proponent of war (chickenhawk), said he had "other priorities." I bet the other 58,000 that died had "other priorities" too.
Bigd: by your standards none of the liberals who opposed service should ever be in office because they might have to advocate for war.>>
DAR
Nope. Sometimes war is appropriate. Such as Afghanistan.
Bigd: Obama said he would attack in Pakistan if he felt there were targets hiding there.>>
DAR
Good. That is appropriate. You'd condemn him if he didn't.
Bigd: We are not at war with Pakistan.>>
DAR
Correct. We are actually working in concert with them to root out terrorists in their midst. Quite appropriate.
Attacking, invading, occupying countries that are not a threat to you? Not appropriate.
D.
***
BARBARA said:
Darrell, as long as you have true christians who believe in Lord’s Word, you will have people protesting gay marriage. Marriage was created by God and ordained as between a man and a woman. Those of you who want it changed are actually trying to fight God and you will only get away with it for so long. One day you all will have to stand before Him and be judged. Yes, God will judge according to His Word and will not change His mind. He love you, but will punish sin and those who don’t believe in Him. Why don’t you pray and ask God to reveal Himself to you. He revealed Himself to my brother in a miraculous way so don’t be surprised if you really want to hear from Him.>>
DAR
Barbara. If you take a grain of sand and hold it at arms length, within that very very tiny portion of sky, far far away, there are about one thousand, five hundred, galaxies.
Not solar systems.
Galaxies.
Each one of these contain, about 100 billion stars.
You can watch a nice four minute 3D video presentation of the Hubble deep field pictures we have taken <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVjF_7ensg">here</a>.
The idea that a creator of such a universe would be interested in the smell of burning goat flesh, or whether or not a man picks up sticks on a Sunday, or would choose to communicate a message of eternal importance through such a manifestly flawed, error filled, contradictory work of fables such as the Christian Bible, is an idea I am unable to take seriously.
If He wishes to contact me, I trust He knows my address.
D.
--------------------
“If God really feared that mankind could build a structure tall enough to see him in the heavens, then the Hubble space telescope has proven that he does not exist, for it has peered some 10 billion light years into deep space, into places much, much further than any structure could ever take us. If God destroyed the Tower of Babel for fear of being seen, and if God confused the language for fear of human technological advancement, then why didn't he see to it that the Hubble was destroyed before it ever reached orbit?” --Chris Bailey
Link: http://www.onebigdog.net/the-ice-cream- ... ent-136766
***
Bigd: "God help you if you need the government insurance to take care of it.">>
DAR
More like, god help you if you don't:
http://www.examiner.com/x-8543-SF-Healt ... healthcare --Does the government actually run the BEST healthcare?
D.
-------------------
And don't forget:
"The fact is that the government-run U.S. Veterans healthcare system is now considered signficantly more efficient than private-sector healthcare according to:
The New England Journal of Medicine ("Effect of the Transformation of the Veterans Affaris Health Care System on the Quality of Care, May 29, 2003)
The Annals of Internal Medicine ("Diabetes Care Quality in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System and Commercial Managed Care: The TRIAD Study," August 17, 2004)
U.S. News & World Report (America's Best Hospitals, Military Might, July 18 2005);
The American Journal of Managed Care ("The Veterans Health Administration: Quality, Value, Accountability, and Information as Transforming Strategies for Patient-Centered Care," 2004,10; part2);
Washington Monthly ("The Best Care Anywhere," January/February 2005)
The Washington Post ("Revamped Veterans Health Care Now a Model," August 22, 2005).
DAR
You know, this is something about team America that you could, and should, actually be proud of!
Maybe some day.
***
Bigd: "Vietnam... even though a Democrat got us into it.">>
DAR
There's a bit more to that story. As my friend Doug once put it:
"This was another civil war that we entered.... Eisenhower had put almost a thousand U.S. military advisors there years earlier, and we'd been funding the South Vietnamese for years before Johnson. Shall we say Eisenhower "started" it by sending money, advisors, and taking sides?"
D.
***
Bigd: "The Guard is Constitutionally allowed to be federalized...">>
DAR
Of course. For emergencies. I checked this before I posted. Iraq was a war of choice, and not in any sense an emergency. My point being, Bush's use of the Guard was a huge change from the days when he used it to hide from going to war.
Bigd: ANY member of Congress who did not know this should resign... it would make them MORONS.>>
DAR
Well it's easy to say in hindsight that they were morons for trusting Bush, now that we know how much of a warmonger he is.
My friend Barbara once explained this:
***
"There is a difference between a declaration of war and granting of powers that could ultimately lead to war. In 1941 Congress, at the request of FDR, declared war on Japan. What Bush II got was not the same at all. The war powers requires first going through all channels short of war, including UN, NATO, and other treaty allies. Bush I went through the UN, put together a coalition, and had the obvious act of aggression from Saddam (invading Kuwait) - with the added benefit that 90% of that war was paid out of international funds. Bush II lied to the UN, ignored our treaty allies, and refused to accept any evidence against his pet project. If he'd asked for a declaration of war, he wouldn't have gotten it. He pulled a sneaky end run by calling war powers the same as a declaration of war. He was not given authority to go to war. He was given the authority to go to all ends short of war, and prepare for war if war was indeed necessary.” --Barbara F.
***
Bigd: "how me where it [gay marriage] is basic human right. You cannot do that because it is not.">>
DAR
"Basic human rights" are man made constructs, like morals. They aren't objective facts you can point to like a pencil on a desk. So I can't show you one.
Withholding basic humans rights from a class of humans because of their ethnicity, or sexual orientation, is bigotry, and it doesn't matter if it is done at the family, city, county, state or federal level.
The anti-gay bigots will soon die out and as adam said and my chart above shows, this will shortly be a non-issue.
Best to stay with the "I don't care" angle since it will allow you to feel better when you lose this issue, which if you haven't noticed, you already have.
Bigd: States decide what they want.>>
DAR
No they don't. See the US constitution. And for this we can all be thankful.
BigD: If a state decides that it does not want it then it is not bigotry or anything else.>>
DAR
Bigotry is not defined or determined by the size of an ignorant mob in a backward state.
Bigd: It is a citizenry exercising its right.
DAR
Their right to be bigots? Just like when they used to hang folks from the tree's eh? There were some folks exercising their rights. Nope, in a few decades, the US will be shamed, even at the federal level, into giving gays full human rights.
I think we'll even go metric some day, which is obviously, objectively, better. Why is the US always bringing up the rear on these things?
Bigd: Gays will die off because they cannot breed>>
DAR
Homosexuality has a robust presence all though out the animal kingdom, so this has not been a detriment (the first gay guy I knew of was married with two children). I don't know why God made so many gays on this planet but alas, his ways are higher than ours.
Bigd: and liberals are aborting their replacements...>>
DAR
Actually, if you want to see where the social dysfunction is the greatest, look to the most religious US and especially the most religious areas of the US.
Now that's a contest we win!
My good friend Art just put this data together beautifully in a column in our local paper. Quite amazing really. I'll be sending this out to over 300 people in our area.
It can be read... http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/NWAT/09.08.29.html --here.
D.
***
MK: Good enough, I’m superior to you.>>
DAR
Better to demonstrate rather than just make the claim. If you were a little smarter, you would know this already.
MK: Show me he flies commercial.>>
DAR
As I remember, it was shown repeatedly in that hit movie of his. You should watch it. I just watched a documentary about Jimmy Carter last night, "The Man from Plains." He was doing a book tour. He flew commercial too.
MK: [He] should ALWAYS fly commercial while not in office.>>
DAR
If you had read the link I gave, where Hannity dishonestly went after him, this is not always possible, as when he has official business involving the president or secret service. Hannity smeared him for using a private jet when he had to for official business.
Show me a Gore smear that is true. I would love to see one. So tired of the lies.
MK: His exact words, “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”>>
DAR
Right. I knew the exact words of course which is why I knew your claim was wrong. So why distort when you can be accurate?
MK: Where in BC?>>
DAR
Salmon Arm.
D.
***
Bigd: "How does one measure peace?">>
DAR
The study I referred to:
"measured countries' peacefulness based on wide range of indicators, 24 in all. A table of the indicators is below."
See the list of indicators here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index
Bigd: "guess it depends on how you measure peace and by Blake’s measure it is the most peaceful.>>
DAR
Blake doesn't assign a list of reasonable variables and then see where the countries stack up. He looks out his window and imagines the world as he wishes it to be. This is wishful thinking and best discarded when one becomes an adult.
D.
***
BLK: Gore flies everywhere on a private jet- the truth>>
DAR
No he doesn't. Nor has he condemned people who use private jets.
BLK: Gore travels in a fleet of SUVs->>
DAR
That's false too. He drives a hybrid.
You can't seem to demonstrate that Al Gore is a hypocrite. But in the process you do a bang up job of showing that you are a liar and not the least bit interested in truth.
D.
***
Bigd: The things that are true [about Gore] are not smears.>>
DAR
Okay, let's see one of those.
Bigd:
Al Gore said he took the initiative in creating the internet.>>
DAR
Which is true, if clumsily worded. Snopes has the debunk of this common distortion here:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Bigd: Any mention of him being involved in it is a LIE. Swat that “smear” down.>>
DAR
Done. See the link. You don't know what you are talking about. I can't believe people still believe this nonsense. You guys are getting mentally inbred reading your same old junk over and over and actually believing it!
Bigd: What criteria do they use for peacefulness?>>
DAR
Twenty four indicators. See them list here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index
Bigd: In Blake’s opinion he lives in the most peaceful country on Earth and that is good enough.>>
DAR
No, he's wrong and he's not even close. He makes it up as he goes.
If he was a big boy he would admit it, learn something new, and move on.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
It's okay for kids to think this way, not so for adults.
D.
***
Speaking of hypocrites, wow.
GOPers Decrying “Socialized Medicine” Go To Govt. Hospital For Surgeries.
Excerpt:
“Republicans in Congress have raised the specter of a bloated, “socialized,” bureaucrat-run nightmare of a health care system… yet… when medical crisis hit close to home, many of these same officials turned to a government-run hospital for their own intensive care and difficult surgeries.”
snort.
***
***
MIKE: Darrel, Dr Day,... is past president of the Canadian Medical Association. Those are his figures regarding waiting lines.>>
DAR
Did you not understand my point that mentioning how many people are on a line does not tell you how fast the line is moving?
As I have said before, Canada has some longer waits for some procedures, in some areas (each province is different). I have never argued that Canada has the best health care in the world. I don't know if they would even be in the top ten. But Canada's system is not being considered for the US.
Presumably all of this lying about and bashing of the Canadian system from the right is going on because they wish to compare the US to Canada's. That's stupid because Canada's system, with all of it's warts, wins. As I have documented over and over with extensive citation (and will gladly post again), it gets better results, has higher satisfaction rates, covers everyone and does so for much less cost. That's better. That's a win.
Now, you wish to make the point that Canada doesn't have enough doctors. Then you ignore my question about what should be done about this.
I pretty much agree with Dr. Day. Regarding rationing, <a href="http://www.brianday.ca/">he gave a lecture last year</a> and made this point:
"Countries like Switzerland, Austria, France, Belgium, Germany and others do not ration or deny access in the Canadian manner."
Read the context at my link. In saying this he was recommending Canada look to *these* countries to modify the Canadian system and improve wait times. These countries have medical systems that are FAR MORE socialized than Canada's. (note: Canada's system has socialized insurance and private doctors.)
Notice he didn't mention the US. Notice he does not support changing the Canadian system to the US's. Why? Because that would be ridiculous. Laughable. In the US system, if you need surgery or have a chronic condition that needs treatment and don't have insurance, or the money, you don't get put on a waiting list, you go home and wait to die.
This happens to about 18,000 people a year. It's a national disgrace, and no country looks to such a system as a model to copy. Especially Canada.
When I was in Canada for the last month I asked many people, about a dozen, specifically, if they had "experienced, or knew of anyone first hand who had ever experienced what they would consider an unreasonable wait time for an important surgery or medical procedure."
These were adults, aged 40-70, with children. All of these people, representing hundreds of concurrent years lived in Canada, said no, except for one.
Now isn't that curious? If this was a such a rampant problem, you would think these people would know of first hand examples.
I personally know of lots of US disaster cases. My brother and his wife went bankrupt when his insurance company went bankrupt and they got stuck with a large bill.
And this fellow's example I mentioned above? He knew of someone who had been diagnosed with a heart condition and got in line for surgery. It was not deemed serious enough to be done immediately. He said the fellow was very worried during this time. I understand. The end result? This man received his surgery and all was well. His fears were misplaced.
And this was his best, and only, example. All the rest didn't know of any.
D.
***
BD: If you get hit by a truck automobile insurance handles it.>>
DAR
No. You're wrong. That doesn't follow. You don't know what you are talking about.
BD: I should not have to pay for someone else’s health care (or anything else).>>
DAR
Tell that to Blake. You're paying for his.
BD: All of our government run medical care is in shambles.>>
DAR
Tell that to this person:
“How many here have actually worked in military medicine? The care is the best in the world, the administrative side and the costs leave little to be desired. Military medicine is a bit of a specialty of mine.”
--Big Dog, Monday Jun 15th, 2009 at 23:09
Note: "Military medicine" is "government run medical care." Please try to remember that.
BD: They are broke and going bankrupt.>>
DAR
They are vastly more efficient than any for profit private system (which is why we took them over) and are inevitably the way of the future.
I bought this fellows book today (author of the article I linked to) since I am preparing for a lecture on this topic this weekend. He notes:
"The United States is the only developed country that relies on profit-making health insurance companies to pay for essential and elective care.... all the other developed countries have decided that basic health insurance must be a nonprofit operation."
--The Healing of America, A global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care. Pg. 36
Private, for profit insurance (without government cost controls) are dinosaurs and will soon be gone.
Oh, and that howler you like to float about the US have the best health care in the world? He rips that one to SHREDS. Wow.
BD: The government can only get money by taxing us and these countries with all the “free” health care are going broke.>>
DAR
Again, you haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. You don't even know where to begin (for starters, no one has "free" health care). As to who is going broke, it's not even close.
Health Expenditure as a percentage of GDP:
(2005)
US 15.3 (now 17%)
Swiss 11.6
France 11.1
Germany 10.7
Canada 9.8
etc. Obviously, we are going broke faster, by a long shot, than any other nation. All to feed the greed.
BD: There are plenty of free market ways to fix the problems in health care.>>
DAR
Actually, they're aren't. Nice mantra though.
D.
---------------------
"But for all their problems, the other industrialized countries tend to do better than the United states on basic measures of health system performance: coverage, quality, cost control, choice. This was the most surprising and infuriating discovery of my global quest--that the US performs so poorly in this fundamental area of human life. In industry, finance, music, science, arts, academics, athletics, Americans can match or surpass any other country. Why can't we do that when it comes to health care?" --ibid, pg. 27
***
BLK: "it is NOT a death panel, it’s a death magazine.">>
DAR
Of course it's completely dishonest to try to smear Obama with this supposed "death magazine" considering... "the pamphlet in question was commissioned by the Bush administration, and discontinued in 2007. The Obama administration has had nothing to do with this."
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/csp ... amphlet-na
Does Blake ever get tired of swimming in his sea of lies?
D.
***
BLK: "I have never sucked off of anyone else’s medical care,>>
DAR
You do it every minute of every day.
BLK: nor will I, although if you care to add me to your policy,>>
DAR
I already have. Your emergency comprehensive coverage is already built into the cost of the premium I pay every month. I, and everyone else who pays for insurance in America, is paying this cost for covering you.
Excerpt:
"Everyone in Japan is required to sign up with a health insurance plan. This is a "personal mandate,".... Every nation that relies on health insurance has that requirement (except the USA), and in Japan the mandate is not controversial at all. "It's considered an element of personal responsibility, that you insure yourself against health care costs," Dr. Ikegami told me. "And who can be against personal responsibility?" --ibid, pg. 87
Freeloaders, that's who.
D.
-------------------
"We are the only nation in the modern industrialized world, among other free-market democracies that: 1) Doesn't cover every citizen in their basic health care needs, 2) Has the misfortune that if you lose your job, you lose your health insurance (just when you need it the most), 3) Makes a PROFIT on the basic health care needs of its citizens, to the point where people can't even afford it, and 4) where insurance providers/companies can CANCEL your current insurance."
***
BLK: "looking out my window at the freest,"
DAR
See that myth dismantled <a href="http://fayfreethinkers.com/mythbuster/a ... l">here</a>.
If your so free, why can't you go to Cuba?
In freedom of the press, the US ranks 17th.
A dozen countries offer more freedom to gays.
etc.
BLK: most peaceful country on Earth,>>
DAR
This is studied carefully and we have a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Pea ... easurement of this</a>. The most peaceful country, this year, is New Zealand. Out of about 140 countries, the US comes in embarrasingly low compared to similar peer countries. 83rd place.
Norway - 2
Denmark - 3
Austria - 5
Sweden - 6
Japan - 7
Canada - 8
BLK: Al Gore justifies using his private jet,>>
DAR
Al Gore doesn't have a private jet. Al Gore has never had a private jet.
BLK: and his fleet of SUVs,>>
DAR
Al Gore doesn't have a fleet of SUV's.
BLK: "the “Diversity” Czar, are seeking ways to control and shut down, (if they wish) the Internet">>
DAR
No they aren't.
BLK: "that pig of a dictator, Hugo Chavez">>
DAR
Hugo Chavez was democratically elected in 1998 with 56% of the vote.
It seems to me that if you had good arguments for your beliefs you would use those rather than appeal to a constant stream of insultingly false information.
D.
***
[Obama appointed Jones and he is a Commie]
"Jones ended his involvement with STORM (and STORM officially dissolved in December 2002).[18]
By the late 1990s, Jones began promoting capitalism as he transformed into an environmentally friendly capitalist. He emerged as one of the foremost champions of green business, entrepreneurship and market-based solutions. In his 2008 best seller The Green Collar Economy, Jones contended that invention and investment will take us out of a pollution-based grey economy and into a healthy new green economy."
Make sure and see his long list of<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones">Awards and Honors</a>. Quite a guy.
D.
***
BLK: "“slippery slope is a logical fallacy”- not so.">>
DAR
The "slippery slope" argument is a classical informal fallacy.
BLK: "there will always be ignorant people. hat’s[sic] just a fact.>>
DAR
Indeed.
D.
**
MK: "Darrel, I don’t even know where to begin.>>
DAR
That's pretty obvious.
MK: I gave the example of New Zealand compared with Antarctica.>>
DAR
Antarctica isn't a country, so it's not in the running, and not relevant.
MK: New Zealand is number one because it has no neighbors, period.>>
DAR
It's not clear why you think proximity to a neighbor would have anything whatsoever to do with a countries "peacefulness." (Hint: it doesn't)
Incidentally, New Zealand also ranks highly in categories such as:
"human development, quality of life, life expectancy, literacy, public education, peace, prosperity, economic freedom, ease of doing business, lack of corruption, press freedom,..."
MK: Austria and Japan, WWII.>>
DAR
If Blake was making his claim 70 years ago, you would have a point. Since he was looking out his window and dreaming about his "most peaceful country on earth" yesterday, you don't.
MK: And Canada would be equal with New Zealand if it didn’t supply a few troops to the UN.>>
DAR
It's not clear why you think a country donating peace-keeping forces to the UN would hurt a countries rating in a measurement of it's "peacefulness." That's backwards.
MK: It only shares a border with the US, no war there.>>
DAR
Right. So there goes your assertion about countries being hurt on the scale because of distance from other countries. Canada is ranked 8, the US, 83rd.
MK: Al Gore flying a non commercial jet video:>>
DAR
The claim I was addressing had nothing to do with whether Al Gore has ever flown in a non-commercial jet.
You have yet to show that Mr. Gore has said people shouldn't fly in jets, private or otherwise.
I gave you two premises you need to support if you want to even begin to get your charge of hypocrisy off the ground. You need *both* of them and you don't even attempt to support either one of them.
Incidentally, even if you could show he has a private jet (you can't), or that he has claimed people shouldn't fly in jets (he hasn't), your argument would still be undermined by the fact that he purchases carbon offsets to compensate for the carbon he does use.
But you didn't even make it that far.
D.
***
DAR: That’s pretty obvious.>>
MK: That’s it, Darrel, resort to name calling when you cannot make your argument.>>
DAR
Name calling? What name did I call you? Do tell. Actually, you said you didn't know where to begin and I simply agreed with you.
MK: I stated Antarctica isn’t a country.>>
DAR
Good for you. Then you should know how profoundly stupid it would be to bring up a continent when discussing ratings of "countries."
MK: The example was its remoteness.>>
DAR
Since it's a continent and not a country, it's remoteness is irrelevant.
Hey Mike, Denmark ranks #2. It's surrounded by countries. Last I checked, Canada was just as far from the US, as the US is from Canada. Yet the rankings are #8 and #83 respectively. And of course Australia is just as remote as New Zealand. Obviously, "remoteness" is a canard and has nothing whatsoever to do with this.
MK: [Austria and Japan] have chosen isolation in response to their participation in WWII.>>
DAR
Japan, the second largest economy in the world, has "chosen isolation?" That's a good one. Actually, they have just chosen to be peaceful.
MK: By doing so [supply a few troops to the UN] Canada is participating in a war.>>
DAR
You are confused. They are participating in keeping peace. I bet this is even why they call them "peace keepers."
MK: His [Gore's] hypocrisy is advocating against global warming and then using private jets, burning more fuel.>>
DAR
I guess you have given upon trying to support your claim, and defend Blakes falsehoods, about him owning a private jet.
Nor have you shown where he has spoken against people flying.
Al Gore has been an effective educator about the science of climate change. Some like to pretend that he has to ride to his presentations on a bicycle or in a row boat, but this isn't the case. It's quite possible to teach people about the science of climate change while at the same time making use of modern transportation.
If you would like to make a case for your charge of hypocrisy, I have shown you what you need to do. There's a reason why you can't do it, and won't even try. You got nothing.
MK: So he can afford to buy carbon offsets. That makes it OK.>>
DAR
Yep.
MK: And since YOU reverted to name calling>>
DAR
What name did I call you? Is "Mike" not correct?
MK: why you are living here?>>
DAR
I like the weather. And the ratio of silly people is a little out of whack. So I try to help out when I can.
MK: "You chose to leave your beloved Canada live in the U.S. and then bash the U.S.>>
DAR
I tell the truth about countries. This causes some discomfort for those invested in myths about their tribe.
As I have mentioned before, I'm not too big on the whole tribalism thing. As Paine famously put it:
"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion."
The whole nationalism thing is over rated and too often unproductive. Best to just be honest and work to improve the environment you're in. Leave the pep rallies for the kiddies.
MK: Why don’t you go home?>>
DAR
Planet earth is my home. But if I lived across this temporary political line we've made up, in Canada, that wouldn't save you from getting the good shellacking you deserve. They have fast internet there too (partially thanks to Al Gore of course).
D.
-----------------
"In his private life, Gore tries to reduce his emissions as much as possible. He drives a hybrid, flies commercially whenever he can, and purchases green power. In the few instances where work has demanded that he travel privately, he purchases carbon offsets for the emissions."
--Spokesperson responding to a smear campaign by Hannity in '07, which you appear to be parroting.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/16/hannity-gore/ --Think Progress.
Further roast here: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/18/hannity-pathetic/ --‘Proud’ Polluter Sean Hannity Launches Pathetic Smear Attack Against Al Gore.
***
It's a safe bet that the 195,000 that have been trained by the Peace Corp (currently 7,876) to work for peace are not the war monger chicken hawk types.
The '09 budget for the Peace Corp was <a href="http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?she ... acts">$340 million</a>.
That's about five hours of money flush in Iraq alone.
So some priorities appear to be out of whack.
D.
**
BigD: Who is the chicken hawk,>>
DAR
You can see a nice, extensive, list of them <a href="http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about ... l">here</a>.
Bigd: the guy in there now who never served>>
DAR
Nope. Didn't support the war. Not a hawk, thus, can't be a "chickenhawk."
Bigd: but is increasing troops and fighting the war?>>
DAR
Pull out of Bush's quagmire in Iraq is <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/2 ... 6.html">on schedule</a>.
Afghanistan? That ball was dropped when the focus was shifted to that country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (contrary to about what about 1/2 of the republicans erroneously believe).
6,001 US killed in both as of yesterday.
That's 2x 9/11.
D.
-----------------
"George F. Will, the elite conservative commentator, will call in his next column for U.S. ground troops to leave Afghanistan, according to publishing sources."
<a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/08 ... a">link</a>.
He's on the list. Under "mouthpieces."
***
Bigd: So this little political piece is supposed to be a list of Chickenhawks?>>
DAR
Correct. They are chickens (didn't serve), and hawks (war promoters/supporters/mongers). That's the two requirements to be a chickenhawk.
Bigd: Bush served and honorably so.>>
DAR
No, he used his connections to get his fanny in the guard so he could avoid the war. Then he didn't show up.
Note:
"In fairness, Bush has been candid about why he enlisted in the Air National Guard. Like many young men of his generation, he wanted to avoid Vietnam. He told one reporter, "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."
--http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4114162/
Bush = Chicken + hawk.
Thus, he's a chickenhawk.
Bigd: I know all you lefties think he went AWOL but he did not. He served his time.>>
DAR
He hasn't even started serving his time yet. That wouldn't be until after the conviction.
BigD: Would you label him [Clinton] as such?>>
DAR
Nope. Not a hawk. You can call him a chicken, but no one but a partisan hack reaching for straws would label him a hawk.
Bigd: is he [Obama] a CH.>>
DAR
Nope. Not a hawk. He is cleaning up after Bush disasters as best as possible. As promised. It's the responsible thing to do.
Bigd: You can blame it on Bush but this is Obama’s war now.>>
DAR
These will always be Bush's wars (read disasters). Wear them with pride.
Bigd: Iraq had ties to the folks who planned and implemented 9/11.>>
DAR
No it didn't. That's just rightwing, rubbish. Saddam hated al-Qaida.
No one has more interest in pushing that howler than this guy, but even he admits:
"Former Vice President Dick Cheney says there was “never any evidence” that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq played any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/06 ... z0Pra0UotC
Another example of how those on the right were, and are, serially misinformed by the dishonest on the right:
***
"Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year [2002], attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens."
The answer is zero."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html --Christian Science Monitor
Bigd: But Iraq was not about 9/11 which many on the left seem to think.>>
DAR
Of course it was. Where did so many Americans get the following, erroneous belief?
"A New York Times/CBS poll this week [2003] shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago." --ibid
Bigd: It was about WMD and regime change...>>
DAR
Right. Which was a bunch of hooey.
"This isn't an issue about intentions or what the hopes were or what the plans were or what the programs were. What took us to war were statements about Saddam's WMDs
and the threat of their imminent use."
--Sen. Carl Levin
The threat was bogus, their "imminent use" a falsehood used to promote a baseless war.
Bigd: as well as forcing compliance with UN resolutions...>>
DAR
We don't care about those. Israel goes against them all the time.
Bigd: many of the politicians on the left actually spoke about taking out Hussein...>>
DAR
Politicans running their mouths. They didn't do it, so they don't get the blame. Bush did it, so he gets the blame.
D.
-------------------
"President Bush made a comment a week ago, and he said 'bring it on.' Well, they brought it on, and now my nephew is dead." --Mary Kewatt, aunt of a soldier killed in Iraq, Minnesota Public Radio
Bush likes to talk tough when other people are doing the dying. That's what chickenhawks do.
***
MK: Look up condescending in the dictionary.>>
DAR
I did. It isn't "name calling." Why do you say one thing when you mean the other?
MK: The example [Antarctica] was its remoteness.>>
DAR
The example is ludicrous. An examination of the list of countries does not show a correlation between peacefulness and closeness to other countries. Austria shares large borders with 7 countries. It's #5.
DAR: Hey Mike, Denmark ranks #2. It’s surrounded by countries.>>
MK: It shares a border with ONE country.>>
DAR
Let me draw you... http://www.yourchildlearns.com/europe_map.htm --a picture.
Look at the top ten. They have neighbors, lots and lots of them.
MK: The site you source states:
"...the weighting of military expenditure “may seem to give heart to freeloaders: countries that enjoy peace precisely because others (often the USA) care for their defense.”
DAR
That's one category. And I agree. Countries do freeload on massive US overspending. Especially Canada.
MK: The U.S. improved from 96 to 83 while Canada remained the same. I will acknowledge it is easier to improve from a higher number.>>
DAR
Let's remember that the actual claim in question I was addressing was that the US is the "most peaceful country on Earth."
I wouldn't even have made a fuss if it was in the top ten. I wish it could make the top twenty.
MK: His private jets refer to his leasing private jets.>>
DAR
Here was the original claim: "Al Gore justifies using his private jet..."
Al Gore doesn't have a private jet, nor has he ever condemned people flying in private jets. He flies commercial when he can.
MK: Please don’t tell me he flies commercial.>>
DAR
To late. Already did. He flies commercial. Get informed. Almost everything the right says and too often believes about Al Gore, is wrong.
MK: Cool, then we can pollute all we want. Just buy carbon offsets.>>
DAR
No, your distorting the claim. No one has said "we can pollute all we want." Buying offsets is a useful stop gap to make up for when excess carbon is used. This reduces a persons carbon "footprint." Buying them is better than not.
MK: Ah, yes, the inventor.>>
DAR
He never said that of course. A little side note. I have been swatting down lies and smears about Al Gore for years. Originally I investigated them innocently enough. This was when I learned just how profoundly dishonest the US media and general discussion is in this country. It's really quite amazing that this is tolerated. I have yet to see a Gore smear that actually holds up. The attacks against him represent an astonishing and in my experience a perfect record of distortion and dishonesty.
And that's too bad.
MK: What part [of Canada] are you from?>>
DAR
In Toronto until 9, then British Columbia until 21.
D.
***
Ben and Jerry sold to the multi-national Unilever in 2000.
"Although the founders are still engaged with the company, they do not hold any board or management position and are not involved in day-to-day management of the company."
As your "Hubby Hubby" link says:
“From the very beginning of our 30 year history, we have supported equal rights for all people. The legalisation of marriage for gay and lesbian couples in Vermont is certainly a step in the right direction and something worth celebrating with peace, love and plenty of ice cream.”
Good for them.
Gay equality is the way of the future. Observe... http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/l ... y%20rights --this graph.
In twenty years or so, suggesting gays shouldn't be allowed equal rights with regard to marriage or anything else, will be as strange as saying today that left handed people shouldn't have equal rights with regard to marriage or anything else.
D.
***
[Obama wants control of the Internet, may shut it down]
DAR
Dear Blake, you couldn't use your little paranoid imagination to conjure up a reason why it might be appropriate to shut the internet off for a bit?
Think about it.
What if we learned some boogie man was going to trigger a bomb via an internet connection? Or a computer virus/worm attack of new and ultra scary proportions?
It might be useful to have a temporary off switch (which would probably never be used) and it only makes sense that the person who would take the heat for such an action would be the fellow at the top.
A fellow who is entrusted with the nuke certainly can handle the responsibility of not abusing an internet off switch.
If it happened, then you would have a reason to whine.
And don't worry, it wouldn't be for long. Politicians thrive on being liked and the power that comes from being liked. People wouldn't like to have their internet off for very long. After all, what would you conservatives do if you couldn't GET YOUR PORN?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680 --Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers.
D.
***
BLK: "Nuclear energy hasn’t even been uttered-">>
DAR
It's uttered all the time and will be a part of our energy future. Personally, I'm a fan.
BLK: [nuke] the cleanest source of energy we can get,>
DAR
Not remotely. Solar thermal is cleaner. Wind is cleaner. Solar photo-voltaic is cleaner. Geothermal is cleaner. Hydro-electric is cleaner. Etc.
And nuclear is non-renewable. Uranium has to be mined and this involves all of the standard nastiness that goes with mining.
And then there is the waste we haven't completely figured out with to do with yet.
BLK: and people will not even speak of it- now there is true hypocrisy.>>
DAR
Nuclear currently provides 19% of our juice. Getting more online is a big deal and very expensive.
BLK: Couple that with the refusal of the Federal government to drill off of our coasts>>
DAR
The "federal government" doesn't have "coasts." States do. Why do you still refuse to answer this question:
What do we do when states say no to coastal drilling? Bring in Federal troops and take over the state?
I bet you'd love that. And then your Beck would actually have something to cry and get excited about.
D.
***
BLK: "Canada, the Land of the Draft Dodger">>
DAR
As a tee shirt I have says: "Canadians Draft Beer, not soldiers."
Canada has never had a draft. When you actually have a legitimate reason to go to war, it usually is the case that the people will come forward to do what is necessary.
Drafting kids to go to a war like Vietnam, (a war that McNamara admits they knew was lost before most soldiers died*), was immoral and you should be ashamed of this history.
D.
*See "The Fog of War" (best documentary 2003)
***
Bigd: I know it is tough for you Darrel because personal responsibility is not a strong point>>
DAR
That you would say this only shows that you don't know me. Best to not speak about things you don't know.
Bigd: Without the votes Bush could never have gone in.>>
DAR
They made the mistake of trusting him when he said he wanted to use such approval as leverage when he went the UN and that he would only use force as a last resort. That was a lie and their mistake was to trust him.
Bigd: Bush served... it means he is not a Chicken.>>
DAR
He hid out in the Guard as so many did in that day. I have no problem with this with regard to the Vietnam war, unless you're also a war hawk, which he is. Because this makes him a chickenhawk.
Rather ironic that Bush took this away and gladly sent those fellows who signed up for the National Guard and it's "One weekend a month, two weeks a year" and sent them to Iraq for up to two years. As if we needed to be guarded from Iraq. What farce.
Bigd: "I also NEVER said that Iraq played a role in 9/11 only that it had ties to the people involved.>>
DAR
Yes, I am well aware of how you used this vague, undefined and nearly vacuous term "ties." It's a carefully chosen code word that makes it seem like you are saying something when you aren't.
One person, a "terrorist associate" had a broken leg and pulled some strings to stay in Iraq, a country of 27 million people, for a while. That's all you have. It's laughable to call this "ties," but it's all you have.
Bigd: Hussein and OBL had communications>>
DAR
OBL called Saddam and was ignored. There's your communication. This was debunked in 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jun16.html --Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed.
Bigd: Clinton pushed for war in Bosnia>>
DAR
Early in July, you said this wasn't a "war." I guess you've changed your position.
Anyway, Clinton isn't a hawk by any stretch. He had a choice between the two evils of allowing genocide, and dropping some bombs, mostly on infrastructure. He chose the latter and it was very successful. That doesn't make him a war hawk. If Clinton was a war hawk (and he wasn't), then he would be a chicken hawk. Bush was a war hawk/monger, and a chicken, thus a "chickenhawk."
Bigd: "who are you to determine if any of these people who got deferrments deserved them or not?"
DAR
Cheney, major proponent of war (chickenhawk), said he had "other priorities." I bet the other 58,000 that died had "other priorities" too.
Bigd: by your standards none of the liberals who opposed service should ever be in office because they might have to advocate for war.>>
DAR
Nope. Sometimes war is appropriate. Such as Afghanistan.
Bigd: Obama said he would attack in Pakistan if he felt there were targets hiding there.>>
DAR
Good. That is appropriate. You'd condemn him if he didn't.
Bigd: We are not at war with Pakistan.>>
DAR
Correct. We are actually working in concert with them to root out terrorists in their midst. Quite appropriate.
Attacking, invading, occupying countries that are not a threat to you? Not appropriate.
D.
***
BARBARA said:
Darrell, as long as you have true christians who believe in Lord’s Word, you will have people protesting gay marriage. Marriage was created by God and ordained as between a man and a woman. Those of you who want it changed are actually trying to fight God and you will only get away with it for so long. One day you all will have to stand before Him and be judged. Yes, God will judge according to His Word and will not change His mind. He love you, but will punish sin and those who don’t believe in Him. Why don’t you pray and ask God to reveal Himself to you. He revealed Himself to my brother in a miraculous way so don’t be surprised if you really want to hear from Him.>>
DAR
Barbara. If you take a grain of sand and hold it at arms length, within that very very tiny portion of sky, far far away, there are about one thousand, five hundred, galaxies.
Not solar systems.
Galaxies.
Each one of these contain, about 100 billion stars.
You can watch a nice four minute 3D video presentation of the Hubble deep field pictures we have taken <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVjF_7ensg">here</a>.
The idea that a creator of such a universe would be interested in the smell of burning goat flesh, or whether or not a man picks up sticks on a Sunday, or would choose to communicate a message of eternal importance through such a manifestly flawed, error filled, contradictory work of fables such as the Christian Bible, is an idea I am unable to take seriously.
If He wishes to contact me, I trust He knows my address.
D.
--------------------
“If God really feared that mankind could build a structure tall enough to see him in the heavens, then the Hubble space telescope has proven that he does not exist, for it has peered some 10 billion light years into deep space, into places much, much further than any structure could ever take us. If God destroyed the Tower of Babel for fear of being seen, and if God confused the language for fear of human technological advancement, then why didn't he see to it that the Hubble was destroyed before it ever reached orbit?” --Chris Bailey
Link: http://www.onebigdog.net/the-ice-cream- ... ent-136766
***
Bigd: "God help you if you need the government insurance to take care of it.">>
DAR
More like, god help you if you don't:
http://www.examiner.com/x-8543-SF-Healt ... healthcare --Does the government actually run the BEST healthcare?
D.
-------------------
And don't forget:
"The fact is that the government-run U.S. Veterans healthcare system is now considered signficantly more efficient than private-sector healthcare according to:
The New England Journal of Medicine ("Effect of the Transformation of the Veterans Affaris Health Care System on the Quality of Care, May 29, 2003)
The Annals of Internal Medicine ("Diabetes Care Quality in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System and Commercial Managed Care: The TRIAD Study," August 17, 2004)
U.S. News & World Report (America's Best Hospitals, Military Might, July 18 2005);
The American Journal of Managed Care ("The Veterans Health Administration: Quality, Value, Accountability, and Information as Transforming Strategies for Patient-Centered Care," 2004,10; part2);
Washington Monthly ("The Best Care Anywhere," January/February 2005)
The Washington Post ("Revamped Veterans Health Care Now a Model," August 22, 2005).
DAR
You know, this is something about team America that you could, and should, actually be proud of!
Maybe some day.
***
Bigd: "Vietnam... even though a Democrat got us into it.">>
DAR
There's a bit more to that story. As my friend Doug once put it:
"This was another civil war that we entered.... Eisenhower had put almost a thousand U.S. military advisors there years earlier, and we'd been funding the South Vietnamese for years before Johnson. Shall we say Eisenhower "started" it by sending money, advisors, and taking sides?"
D.
***
Bigd: "The Guard is Constitutionally allowed to be federalized...">>
DAR
Of course. For emergencies. I checked this before I posted. Iraq was a war of choice, and not in any sense an emergency. My point being, Bush's use of the Guard was a huge change from the days when he used it to hide from going to war.
Bigd: ANY member of Congress who did not know this should resign... it would make them MORONS.>>
DAR
Well it's easy to say in hindsight that they were morons for trusting Bush, now that we know how much of a warmonger he is.
My friend Barbara once explained this:
***
"There is a difference between a declaration of war and granting of powers that could ultimately lead to war. In 1941 Congress, at the request of FDR, declared war on Japan. What Bush II got was not the same at all. The war powers requires first going through all channels short of war, including UN, NATO, and other treaty allies. Bush I went through the UN, put together a coalition, and had the obvious act of aggression from Saddam (invading Kuwait) - with the added benefit that 90% of that war was paid out of international funds. Bush II lied to the UN, ignored our treaty allies, and refused to accept any evidence against his pet project. If he'd asked for a declaration of war, he wouldn't have gotten it. He pulled a sneaky end run by calling war powers the same as a declaration of war. He was not given authority to go to war. He was given the authority to go to all ends short of war, and prepare for war if war was indeed necessary.” --Barbara F.
***
Bigd: "how me where it [gay marriage] is basic human right. You cannot do that because it is not.">>
DAR
"Basic human rights" are man made constructs, like morals. They aren't objective facts you can point to like a pencil on a desk. So I can't show you one.
Withholding basic humans rights from a class of humans because of their ethnicity, or sexual orientation, is bigotry, and it doesn't matter if it is done at the family, city, county, state or federal level.
The anti-gay bigots will soon die out and as adam said and my chart above shows, this will shortly be a non-issue.
Best to stay with the "I don't care" angle since it will allow you to feel better when you lose this issue, which if you haven't noticed, you already have.
Bigd: States decide what they want.>>
DAR
No they don't. See the US constitution. And for this we can all be thankful.
BigD: If a state decides that it does not want it then it is not bigotry or anything else.>>
DAR
Bigotry is not defined or determined by the size of an ignorant mob in a backward state.
Bigd: It is a citizenry exercising its right.
DAR
Their right to be bigots? Just like when they used to hang folks from the tree's eh? There were some folks exercising their rights. Nope, in a few decades, the US will be shamed, even at the federal level, into giving gays full human rights.
I think we'll even go metric some day, which is obviously, objectively, better. Why is the US always bringing up the rear on these things?
Bigd: Gays will die off because they cannot breed>>
DAR
Homosexuality has a robust presence all though out the animal kingdom, so this has not been a detriment (the first gay guy I knew of was married with two children). I don't know why God made so many gays on this planet but alas, his ways are higher than ours.
Bigd: and liberals are aborting their replacements...>>
DAR
Actually, if you want to see where the social dysfunction is the greatest, look to the most religious US and especially the most religious areas of the US.
Now that's a contest we win!
My good friend Art just put this data together beautifully in a column in our local paper. Quite amazing really. I'll be sending this out to over 300 people in our area.
It can be read... http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/NWAT/09.08.29.html --here.
D.
***
MK: Good enough, I’m superior to you.>>
DAR
Better to demonstrate rather than just make the claim. If you were a little smarter, you would know this already.
MK: Show me he flies commercial.>>
DAR
As I remember, it was shown repeatedly in that hit movie of his. You should watch it. I just watched a documentary about Jimmy Carter last night, "The Man from Plains." He was doing a book tour. He flew commercial too.
MK: [He] should ALWAYS fly commercial while not in office.>>
DAR
If you had read the link I gave, where Hannity dishonestly went after him, this is not always possible, as when he has official business involving the president or secret service. Hannity smeared him for using a private jet when he had to for official business.
Show me a Gore smear that is true. I would love to see one. So tired of the lies.
MK: His exact words, “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”>>
DAR
Right. I knew the exact words of course which is why I knew your claim was wrong. So why distort when you can be accurate?
MK: Where in BC?>>
DAR
Salmon Arm.
D.
***
Bigd: "How does one measure peace?">>
DAR
The study I referred to:
"measured countries' peacefulness based on wide range of indicators, 24 in all. A table of the indicators is below."
See the list of indicators here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index
Bigd: "guess it depends on how you measure peace and by Blake’s measure it is the most peaceful.>>
DAR
Blake doesn't assign a list of reasonable variables and then see where the countries stack up. He looks out his window and imagines the world as he wishes it to be. This is wishful thinking and best discarded when one becomes an adult.
D.
***
BLK: Gore flies everywhere on a private jet- the truth>>
DAR
No he doesn't. Nor has he condemned people who use private jets.
BLK: Gore travels in a fleet of SUVs->>
DAR
That's false too. He drives a hybrid.
You can't seem to demonstrate that Al Gore is a hypocrite. But in the process you do a bang up job of showing that you are a liar and not the least bit interested in truth.
D.
***
Bigd: The things that are true [about Gore] are not smears.>>
DAR
Okay, let's see one of those.
Bigd:
Al Gore said he took the initiative in creating the internet.>>
DAR
Which is true, if clumsily worded. Snopes has the debunk of this common distortion here:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Bigd: Any mention of him being involved in it is a LIE. Swat that “smear” down.>>
DAR
Done. See the link. You don't know what you are talking about. I can't believe people still believe this nonsense. You guys are getting mentally inbred reading your same old junk over and over and actually believing it!
Bigd: What criteria do they use for peacefulness?>>
DAR
Twenty four indicators. See them list here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index
Bigd: In Blake’s opinion he lives in the most peaceful country on Earth and that is good enough.>>
DAR
No, he's wrong and he's not even close. He makes it up as he goes.
If he was a big boy he would admit it, learn something new, and move on.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
It's okay for kids to think this way, not so for adults.
D.
***
Speaking of hypocrites, wow.
GOPers Decrying “Socialized Medicine” Go To Govt. Hospital For Surgeries.
Excerpt:
“Republicans in Congress have raised the specter of a bloated, “socialized,” bureaucrat-run nightmare of a health care system… yet… when medical crisis hit close to home, many of these same officials turned to a government-run hospital for their own intensive care and difficult surgeries.”
snort.
***
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - July)
SEPT 3 - 6, 2009
***
Bigd: Americans voice their opposition to the plan that will allow the government to take over about 17% of our GDP.>>
DAR
Utterly false. You are confusing *total* healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP with *Government* spending as a percentage of GDP. These are different things.
Bigd: The government is interested in taking control of health care because then it will control our lives.>>
DAR
Fear mongering garbage. No country has "complete control" of health care. Even Canada which is often mistakenly referred to as socialized, has PRIVATE doctors. It's the insurance system that is socialized. Likewise, other countries have much more competition than we have in many areas (i.e. Japan has more private for profit hospitals than the US, docs are private and competition is fierce). Etc.
Bigd: The bill is not about health and it is not about care.>>
DAR
The bill is about both, obviously, and it's also about controlling costs. In the 70's Nixon complained that healthcare was 7% of GDP. Now it's pushing 18%. Shall we wait until we are spending 25%? I don't think so. We can't afford it. We have Bush's wars to pay China back for.
Bigd: The government wants to control your access to health care.>>
DAR
No. The nation wants everyone to have access to health care. According to the most prestigious scientific organization in the country, The National Academy Science, 20,000 Americans die because they don't have access to care. This is a DISGRACE. It is immoral. It should be unamerican. The world looks on at this side show in amazement.
The US is the only nation in the modern industrialized world, among other free-market democracies that:
1) Doesn't cover every citizen in their basic health care needs,
2) Has a system that if you lose your job, you can lose your health insurance (just when you need it the most)
3) Makes a PROFIT on the basic health care needs of its citizens, to the point where people can't afford it
4) where insurance providers/companies can cherry-pick and deny coverage because of preexisting conditions and can CANCEL your current insurance.
Bigd: Politicians are lying to you when they say that you can keep your plan if you like it.>>
DAR
No they aren't. Even socialized Britain allows private insurance and private doctors. As does Germany. You don't know what you are talking about.
Bigd: "There will be no money left [SS] in the very near future.>>
DAR
False. Minor adjustments, made many times before, will make it solvent for decades. Medicare, is another story.
Bigd: The government... needs a new source of income.>>
DAR
Or, a way to control costs. We spend more and get crappy results. All of our peer countries are kicking America's butt.
Bigd: Remember, the goal is for them to get single payer health care.>>
DAR
That's false. It's not even being considered. Even though it is the best (Taiwan studied the systems extensively and went with single payer, no rationing, 2% administration). Canadian politicians passed their system unanimously. It gets better results, for 1/3 less, covers everyone, no bankruptcies and higher satisfaction. That's a win and it's not even close.
Bigd: Control of health care is a major way for government to gain more control over YOU.>>
DAR
Health care needs to cover all citizens. The current US system of turning away the sick is unchristian, unamerican and immoral.
Bigd: Do we really want government types forcing end of life decisions on us?>>
DAR
Another lie. People should have the option of end of life counseling and how to make very important living will decisions. They should also be encouraged to have wills. When people die without a will, as they often do, they leave a mess for the state to clean up.
Bigd: The UK has had government run health care for a long time...>>
DAR
Right. Let's jolly well talk about the UK a bit.
Full coverage, no bills.
1/3 of the cost to deliver.
Better recovery rates than the US from most major illnesses.
Private insurance and doc's available but only 3% both to use this since they are happy with the National Health Service.
85% of RX is covered.
Administration is 1/3 of US. One of the most efficient systems.
Doc's are private.
malpractice is about 1/12th of US cost.
The US system of rationing and denying care to the poor is immoral
Britain's coverage for all, works very well.
Bigd: Obama has appointed people... who have long histories of advocating allowing people to die rather than extending lives.>>
DAR
A disgusting and shameless lie.
Bigd: The elderly, handicapped and mentally ill are not worth as much to them as the young and healthy.>>
DAR
You know who isn't worth anything in the US? People without money or insurance. 45 million of them. This is immoral.
Bigd: Do we want a complete overhaul of the system so that we can include the very small percentage of people who have no insurance?>>
DAR
Yes we do:
"...85 percent of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt,"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/healt ... 1poll.html
85% is a very strong majority.
Hey, if you lay 48 million people end to end do you know how far they extend? Around the planet, twice. Only in your rightwing la la land is that in any way "small."
D.
***
Bigd: am supposed to accept your ancedotal Canadian health care stuff as fact.>>
DAR
Not anecdotal. Again:
***
"The most comprehensive study that was ever under taken on the two health care systems, the US and Canada’s was done jointly by Harvard University and McMasters University:
Overall, 14 of the 38 studies showed better outcomes in Canada, while only 5 favored the U.S. The remaining 19 studies showed equivalent or mixed results in the two nations. When the studies were combined statistically, the mortality rate was 5% lower in Canada."
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/may/quali ... lthcar.php
Canada gets better results, for 1/3 less cost, covers everyone, has no bankruptcies, no unemployment gaps, no 20,000 dying per year from lack of access and of course higher satisfaction. Many other countries, about 30, beat the US too. The US system is a disgrace and immoral.
Bigd: What were the methods used? Who did they talk to and what were the outcomes delivered?>>
DAR
If you had READ the actual article you would know this already.
If you weren't so devoted to your irrational ideology you would be able to read such an article and feel a source of PRIDE for your country. Instead, you will find reasons, completely bogus reasons, to try and bash America's success in this regard. It's pathetic.
D.
***
BLK:
DAR
You didn't answer the question. Again.
"What do we do when states say no to coastal drilling?"
You said nuclear is the "cleanest source of energy we can get..."
I gave five counter examples which show your claim is false.
Here is something you said Friday Jun 19th, 2009 at 06:47
“Adam, when I am wrong, I will admit it,...” --Blake
We'll see if you keep your word.
***
MK: I’m smart enough to know that being condescending is derogatory.>>
DAR
You're right. It is. When are you going to be smart enough to know it isn't "name calling?"
MK: Jimmy Carter, the man who gave us stagflation the Iranian hostage situation.>>
DAR
Did he actually take them as hostages himself? No. And they all came home safe. They are very thankful to president Carter for this.
As I have pointed out before, among presidents since WWII, the Demo's have the top three slots, the republicans have the bottom three slots. Carter is squarely in the middle beating your Nixon, Eisenhower and beating the pants off of both papa Bush and baby Bush *handily*.
http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_da_ ... dents.html --Forbes
MK: And what does he have to with Gore flying commercial?>>
DAR
Both won the election to be president and both fly commercial now.
MK: I have a hard time believing he couldn’t have found a commercial flight.>>
DAR
That was not the claim. Apparently you still didn't read the link.
MK: You’ll never convince me otherwise and you cannot prove it.>>
DAR
Spoken like a true dogmatist. Okay, I'll hold your hand and go get the quote in question:
"Hannity attacked Gore for taking a private jet from New Hampshire to Washington DC in January 2000 in order to attend the State of the Union address.
– Al Gore was the sitting Vice President at the time, and as such, he followed Secret Service security protocols. That is why he did not fly commercially, as Hannity seemed to suggest he should have."
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/18/hannity-pathetic/ --"‘Proud’ Polluter Sean Hannity Launches Pathetic Smear Attack Against Al Gore."
Al Gore has never condemned flying in jets, private or commercial, and he buys offsets so his carbon foot print is zero. You guys got anything but lies and distortions to smear him with? Still waiting.
***
Bigd: I actually work in the industry and see what goes on.>>
DAR
Hence the irony. You work in one of the VERY few systems that actually is 100% socialized. And you already SAID, it was the "best in the world."
Quote:
“How many here have actually worked in military medicine? The care is the best in the world, the administrative side and the costs leave little to be desired. Military medicine is a bit of a specialty of mine.”
--Big Dog, Monday Jun 15th, 2009 at 23:09
Bigd: I can prove anything with research depending on what I want.>>
DAR
Okay, then show me a comprehensive analysis of the US health system in comparison with peer countries and show me that the US comes out ahead. I can bury you in such comprehensive studies and the US, shamefully, GETS CREAMED.
Bigd: You gave anecdotal evidence of all the people you asked while you were there and made it look like that proved they had it good.>>
DAR
I specifically said it was anecdotal and said to look to the actual research which I have cited and can again. I thought it would be interesting to mention my own person attempt, while on vacation, to find Canadians who had waited too long. I couldn't. Completely unscientific of course. The fact that I couldn't find any, doesn't prove much, but it is consistent with the researching showing the problem is insignificant.
Bigd: You assume that even if socialized medicine was good our government could run it effectively.>>
DAR
Another misunderstanding you keep peddling. None of our peer countries have "socialized medicine." Even the UK, which leans the most that way, has private Doc's.
If you want to see socialized medicine at work, go to work. It's the best. According, to, you.
D.
----------------
ps. I am not for socialized medicine. I am for what works, has the best results, lowest cost, least waste, most freedom and covers everyone.
All of our peer countries, wealthy nations, are better at achieving those goals than the US is.
***
Bigd: "I don’t work in socialized medicine.">>
DAR
The system you work in, if it is military medicine, is pure socialized medicine, top to bottom, through and through. Sorry to be the one to break the news to you. You love it, you say it has "the best care," and it's COMPLETELY socialized.
I just read the following book and gave a lecture on it:
"The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care"
T. R. Reid traveled the world and carefully studied many of our peer countries health care systems while living in each country (he also did a Frontline show on this called "Sick Around the World").
Page 12:
"Socialized medicine" may be a scary term, but in practice, Americans rather like government-run medicine. The Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the world's purest models of socialized medicine at work. In the Medicare system, covering about 44 million elderly or disabled Americans, the federal government makes the rules and pays the bills. And yet both of these" socialized" health care systems are enormously popular with the people who use them and consistently rate high in surveys of patient satisfaction."
Bigd: If I worked for the VA or the Military health care system I would not be working in socialized medicine.>>
DAR
I am sorry, but you are completely, 100%, confused. And that's putting it nicely. It doesn't get more socialized than the military and VA systems. No country has a system that is more socialized. It would not be possible to be MORE socialized.
Bigd: The medical services provided are compensation for service to the country.>>
DAR
That's nice. A social program, for those who serve and have served. Imagine countries that have a similar (but less socialized) program for all citizens. This is what our peer countries do. All of them. And it saves them a lot of money, wastes far less, covers everyone and gets better results.
Bigd: They are not free services for people who cannot afford their own health care.>>
DAR
They are free services and whether they can afford them or not, is irrelevant. That is how such systems work, and quite the point of them. With well over 100,000 veterans homeless (closer to 200k), there are a lot who would of course be a lot of veterans not able to afford health care.
But thanks to this US government social program, they are covered. This is something to take national pride in. Good job America! This is the country stepping up and doing what is right.
That there are so many homeless vets however, is not something to be proud of.
Bigd: You take what I said out of context.>>
DAR
Of course I did not. There is no context that can change what you said. So instead, you try to simply change/deny what you said.
Bigd: I said the care given is the best (and military medicine brings innovation to the civilian world) but that the administration leaves a lot to be desired.>>
DAR
Actually, you said the exact opposite of that. Again, as quoted above:
"...the administrative side and the costs leave LITTLE to be desired." --Bigd
Caps mine.
The antonym of "lot" is "little." There is only one.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/lot
D.
***
BLK: "...what am I doing talking morals with an atheist for?>>
DAR
Morality has nothing to do with theism. Moral questions pose the exact same problems for a God as they do for theists, atheists and everyone else.
As I told you in July, Plato pointed this out 2,400 years ago. You can learn about this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma --Euthyphro Dilemma
D.
***
BLK: so the states permission might not count for much->>
DAR
Still avoiding the question. California says NO to drilling off their coast. And your answer to this is... what? Fed overrules states?
Poor Blake. Stuck.
BLK: Nuclear, despite the fuel rod situation, is still very clean,>>
DAR
You said it was "the cleanest source of energy we can get...". It isn't. It isn't even close.
BLK: roadblock various factions from the federal govt. to the enviro- loons throw up...>>
DAR
Fortunately the folks who built and manage Chernobyl, didn't have to deal with such "loons."
Oh wait. Bad example.
BLK: WE dispose of waste underground at Yucca Mountain->>
DAR
There is no waste disposed or stored at Yucca Mountain.
BLK: do you have a better place?>>
DAR
Nope. But let's make a whole lot more of it and just hope for the best eh?
BLK: all the big talk died, much like the rest of his [Obama's] promises.>>
DAR
He made no promises regarding nuclear power. And speaking of keeping promises, he already kept a big one about lowering taxes:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/taxes --Obama Has Cut Taxes for 98.6 Percent of Working* Households**.
Quick! Time for a protest! Grab your teabags!
D.
***
Bigd: Ancedotal.>>
DAR
Absolutely. And completely consistent with my experience.
Bigd: I suppose all the news stories where they do find Canadians who want to scrap [their system]>>
DAR
This number is in the single digits, at most. When support for something as important and controversial as health, in a thriving democracy, is in the 90+ range, this means it is a smashing success.
Bigd: people in the medical profession say it is not good>>
DAR
You will always have some of those. The US system is so bad now, that about half of US *doctors* want single payer. They can't take it any more.
http://www.madashelldoctors.com/
Bigd: or politicians say it is running out of money or costing too>>
DAR
Heathcare systems always want more money. No exceptions.
Bigd: not as important as two schmoes with a camera...>>
DAR
Not at all. One should look to the best most comprehensive scientific analysis of these matters, which I have already done.
This was just a bonus to add a little flavor.
What you don't seem to grasp, like many Americans, is that the US system is so broken that people in other countries struggle to understand why the world's richest country has allowed it to get this way.
D.
***
Bigd; "Let the free market do its thing without the government...">>
DAR
This from a person who works in a completely socialized system of health care, and at the same time, says this care "is the best in the world."
And I agree.
Amazing what one cannot see when they are completely blinded by ideology.
D.
-------------------
Excerpt:
"A team of researchers recently set out to compare the quality of VHA care with that of care in a national sample by using a comprehensive quality-of-care measure.
*VA scores highest in quality of care*
The research team found that patients from the VHA scored 16 percentage points higher for adjusted overall quality...
For chronic disease care, the VA finished 13 percentage points higher...
For preventive care, the VA finished 20 points higher (64% vs. 44%; difference [CI, 12 to 28 percentage points]). The comparison the VA did not win was for acute care.
The VHA held the strongest advantage in processes targeted by VHA performance measurement, where the VA finished 23 percentage points ahead of the competition...
From the study, the research team concludes that patients receiving socialized, government-run medicine from the VHA received higher-quality care according to a broad measure...
What this study really says is that the more accurately we measure, the more we begin to see that socialized, government-run medical programs like the VA provide extremely high quality medical care.
...This recent study of the government-run VA medical system shows that contrary to those doubters, government-run healthcare leads in nearly every measurable category."
http://www.examiner.com/x-8543-SF-Healt ... healthcare --LINK.
DAR
You should be proud of the what these hard working people at the VA have accomplished for our veterans. Instead you ignorantly and baselessly bash them.
***
BLK: "The feds COULD trump the states in Federal waters...">>
DAR
Still avoiding the question.
I asked what YOU think should be done.
Should the Fed trump the states rights?
This is now the forth time I have ask you this question, in this thread.
You know the nice thing about being a freethinker and a person in honest and fearless pursuit of truth no matter where it leads?
I am never afraid of answering questions. Ever.
D.
**
Bigd: "I did not say it was the best system in the world only that the people provide the best care in the world.>>
DAR
And that is EXACTLY what I said you said, while quoting you verbatim. It's all above, in black in white. Including your distortion and completely misreading of your own claim:
“How many here have actually worked in military medicine? The care is the best in the world, the administrative side and the costs leave little to be desired. Military medicine is a bit of a specialty of mine.”
–Big Dog, Monday Jun 15th, 2009 at 23:09
Here is the link:
http://www.onebigdog.net/the-rangel-rop ... ent-132336
This means, according to you, that military medicine provides health care that is "the best in the world."
BigD: I specifically know about military medicine which is not socialized,>>
DAR
It is completely socialized. It could not be more socialized. The VA's system is also completely socialized medicine. It could not be more so.
I am sorry you don't know what you are talking about. But there it is.
D.
------------------------
"Socialized medicine has been tried in the United States, and it has proven superior to health care supplied by the private sector...
The socialized medicine to which I refer is the complex of hospitals managed by the Veterans Administration. Longman cites a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2003 comparing veterans' hospitals with fee-for-service health care funded by Medicare... By every criterion, the New England Journal found the veterans' hospitals to be superior...
Surveys by the National Committee for Quality Assurance and other organizations, have reached the same conclusion. The superiority of VA hospitals is so obvious that by now it ought to be common knowledge. But it isn't, because an insane political consensus that firmly opposes turning health care over to the government—because the government is presumed incapable of doing anything well—doesn't want to hear that government hospitals are outperforming private hospitals."
The Triumph of Socialized Medicine.
***
BigdL "There are plenty of VA stories for you to read by people who deal with the system (rather than just knowing the people like me). Read what they write.">>
DAR
Yes, let's take a careful look at that:
***
VA -- more than fine
WaPo reports on the sixth year in a row that the VA has outperformed the private sector in customer satisfaction:
Inpatient care received a rating of 83 on a 100-point scale; outpatient care got a rating of 80. In comparison, a similar survey of patients receiving private care found they rated their satisfaction at 73 for inpatient care and 75 for outpatient care.
Nicholson attributed the high ratings to the changes in the system, such as implementation of electronic records to reduce the risk of errors.
"Our system has become not only much more efficient, but safer," Nicholson said.
The VA is the only completely insulated government-run system in the U.S. Medicaid and Medicare, although their growth of spending tends to be much more predictable than the private sector, still exist within it. They rely on our fractured care delivery system, lack of preventative care, and inefficient system of paperwork and hard copy medical records. In the private sector, that means to uncontrolled spending, bad health outcomes, and especially medical errors.
The VA not only routinely out-performs the private sector, it arrived at that level of quality after years at the bottom of the barrel. When conservatives harp about Medicare Part D and conclude "government can't do anything right" -- here's another direction to point them. The only truly government-run system in the U.S., and it provides better care than all the others."
http://healthypolicy.typepad.com/blog/2 ... an_fi.html --LINK
***
***
Bigd: Americans voice their opposition to the plan that will allow the government to take over about 17% of our GDP.>>
DAR
Utterly false. You are confusing *total* healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP with *Government* spending as a percentage of GDP. These are different things.
Bigd: The government is interested in taking control of health care because then it will control our lives.>>
DAR
Fear mongering garbage. No country has "complete control" of health care. Even Canada which is often mistakenly referred to as socialized, has PRIVATE doctors. It's the insurance system that is socialized. Likewise, other countries have much more competition than we have in many areas (i.e. Japan has more private for profit hospitals than the US, docs are private and competition is fierce). Etc.
Bigd: The bill is not about health and it is not about care.>>
DAR
The bill is about both, obviously, and it's also about controlling costs. In the 70's Nixon complained that healthcare was 7% of GDP. Now it's pushing 18%. Shall we wait until we are spending 25%? I don't think so. We can't afford it. We have Bush's wars to pay China back for.
Bigd: The government wants to control your access to health care.>>
DAR
No. The nation wants everyone to have access to health care. According to the most prestigious scientific organization in the country, The National Academy Science, 20,000 Americans die because they don't have access to care. This is a DISGRACE. It is immoral. It should be unamerican. The world looks on at this side show in amazement.
The US is the only nation in the modern industrialized world, among other free-market democracies that:
1) Doesn't cover every citizen in their basic health care needs,
2) Has a system that if you lose your job, you can lose your health insurance (just when you need it the most)
3) Makes a PROFIT on the basic health care needs of its citizens, to the point where people can't afford it
4) where insurance providers/companies can cherry-pick and deny coverage because of preexisting conditions and can CANCEL your current insurance.
Bigd: Politicians are lying to you when they say that you can keep your plan if you like it.>>
DAR
No they aren't. Even socialized Britain allows private insurance and private doctors. As does Germany. You don't know what you are talking about.
Bigd: "There will be no money left [SS] in the very near future.>>
DAR
False. Minor adjustments, made many times before, will make it solvent for decades. Medicare, is another story.
Bigd: The government... needs a new source of income.>>
DAR
Or, a way to control costs. We spend more and get crappy results. All of our peer countries are kicking America's butt.
Bigd: Remember, the goal is for them to get single payer health care.>>
DAR
That's false. It's not even being considered. Even though it is the best (Taiwan studied the systems extensively and went with single payer, no rationing, 2% administration). Canadian politicians passed their system unanimously. It gets better results, for 1/3 less, covers everyone, no bankruptcies and higher satisfaction. That's a win and it's not even close.
Bigd: Control of health care is a major way for government to gain more control over YOU.>>
DAR
Health care needs to cover all citizens. The current US system of turning away the sick is unchristian, unamerican and immoral.
Bigd: Do we really want government types forcing end of life decisions on us?>>
DAR
Another lie. People should have the option of end of life counseling and how to make very important living will decisions. They should also be encouraged to have wills. When people die without a will, as they often do, they leave a mess for the state to clean up.
Bigd: The UK has had government run health care for a long time...>>
DAR
Right. Let's jolly well talk about the UK a bit.
Full coverage, no bills.
1/3 of the cost to deliver.
Better recovery rates than the US from most major illnesses.
Private insurance and doc's available but only 3% both to use this since they are happy with the National Health Service.
85% of RX is covered.
Administration is 1/3 of US. One of the most efficient systems.
Doc's are private.
malpractice is about 1/12th of US cost.
The US system of rationing and denying care to the poor is immoral
Britain's coverage for all, works very well.
Bigd: Obama has appointed people... who have long histories of advocating allowing people to die rather than extending lives.>>
DAR
A disgusting and shameless lie.
Bigd: The elderly, handicapped and mentally ill are not worth as much to them as the young and healthy.>>
DAR
You know who isn't worth anything in the US? People without money or insurance. 45 million of them. This is immoral.
Bigd: Do we want a complete overhaul of the system so that we can include the very small percentage of people who have no insurance?>>
DAR
Yes we do:
"...85 percent of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt,"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/healt ... 1poll.html
85% is a very strong majority.
Hey, if you lay 48 million people end to end do you know how far they extend? Around the planet, twice. Only in your rightwing la la land is that in any way "small."
D.
***
Bigd: am supposed to accept your ancedotal Canadian health care stuff as fact.>>
DAR
Not anecdotal. Again:
***
"The most comprehensive study that was ever under taken on the two health care systems, the US and Canada’s was done jointly by Harvard University and McMasters University:
Overall, 14 of the 38 studies showed better outcomes in Canada, while only 5 favored the U.S. The remaining 19 studies showed equivalent or mixed results in the two nations. When the studies were combined statistically, the mortality rate was 5% lower in Canada."
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/may/quali ... lthcar.php
Canada gets better results, for 1/3 less cost, covers everyone, has no bankruptcies, no unemployment gaps, no 20,000 dying per year from lack of access and of course higher satisfaction. Many other countries, about 30, beat the US too. The US system is a disgrace and immoral.
Bigd: What were the methods used? Who did they talk to and what were the outcomes delivered?>>
DAR
If you had READ the actual article you would know this already.
If you weren't so devoted to your irrational ideology you would be able to read such an article and feel a source of PRIDE for your country. Instead, you will find reasons, completely bogus reasons, to try and bash America's success in this regard. It's pathetic.
D.
***
BLK:
DAR
You didn't answer the question. Again.
"What do we do when states say no to coastal drilling?"
You said nuclear is the "cleanest source of energy we can get..."
I gave five counter examples which show your claim is false.
Here is something you said Friday Jun 19th, 2009 at 06:47
“Adam, when I am wrong, I will admit it,...” --Blake
We'll see if you keep your word.
***
MK: I’m smart enough to know that being condescending is derogatory.>>
DAR
You're right. It is. When are you going to be smart enough to know it isn't "name calling?"
MK: Jimmy Carter, the man who gave us stagflation the Iranian hostage situation.>>
DAR
Did he actually take them as hostages himself? No. And they all came home safe. They are very thankful to president Carter for this.
As I have pointed out before, among presidents since WWII, the Demo's have the top three slots, the republicans have the bottom three slots. Carter is squarely in the middle beating your Nixon, Eisenhower and beating the pants off of both papa Bush and baby Bush *handily*.
http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_da_ ... dents.html --Forbes
MK: And what does he have to with Gore flying commercial?>>
DAR
Both won the election to be president and both fly commercial now.
MK: I have a hard time believing he couldn’t have found a commercial flight.>>
DAR
That was not the claim. Apparently you still didn't read the link.
MK: You’ll never convince me otherwise and you cannot prove it.>>
DAR
Spoken like a true dogmatist. Okay, I'll hold your hand and go get the quote in question:
"Hannity attacked Gore for taking a private jet from New Hampshire to Washington DC in January 2000 in order to attend the State of the Union address.
– Al Gore was the sitting Vice President at the time, and as such, he followed Secret Service security protocols. That is why he did not fly commercially, as Hannity seemed to suggest he should have."
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/18/hannity-pathetic/ --"‘Proud’ Polluter Sean Hannity Launches Pathetic Smear Attack Against Al Gore."
Al Gore has never condemned flying in jets, private or commercial, and he buys offsets so his carbon foot print is zero. You guys got anything but lies and distortions to smear him with? Still waiting.
***
Bigd: I actually work in the industry and see what goes on.>>
DAR
Hence the irony. You work in one of the VERY few systems that actually is 100% socialized. And you already SAID, it was the "best in the world."
Quote:
“How many here have actually worked in military medicine? The care is the best in the world, the administrative side and the costs leave little to be desired. Military medicine is a bit of a specialty of mine.”
--Big Dog, Monday Jun 15th, 2009 at 23:09
Bigd: I can prove anything with research depending on what I want.>>
DAR
Okay, then show me a comprehensive analysis of the US health system in comparison with peer countries and show me that the US comes out ahead. I can bury you in such comprehensive studies and the US, shamefully, GETS CREAMED.
Bigd: You gave anecdotal evidence of all the people you asked while you were there and made it look like that proved they had it good.>>
DAR
I specifically said it was anecdotal and said to look to the actual research which I have cited and can again. I thought it would be interesting to mention my own person attempt, while on vacation, to find Canadians who had waited too long. I couldn't. Completely unscientific of course. The fact that I couldn't find any, doesn't prove much, but it is consistent with the researching showing the problem is insignificant.
Bigd: You assume that even if socialized medicine was good our government could run it effectively.>>
DAR
Another misunderstanding you keep peddling. None of our peer countries have "socialized medicine." Even the UK, which leans the most that way, has private Doc's.
If you want to see socialized medicine at work, go to work. It's the best. According, to, you.
D.
----------------
ps. I am not for socialized medicine. I am for what works, has the best results, lowest cost, least waste, most freedom and covers everyone.
All of our peer countries, wealthy nations, are better at achieving those goals than the US is.
***
Bigd: "I don’t work in socialized medicine.">>
DAR
The system you work in, if it is military medicine, is pure socialized medicine, top to bottom, through and through. Sorry to be the one to break the news to you. You love it, you say it has "the best care," and it's COMPLETELY socialized.
I just read the following book and gave a lecture on it:
"The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care"
T. R. Reid traveled the world and carefully studied many of our peer countries health care systems while living in each country (he also did a Frontline show on this called "Sick Around the World").
Page 12:
"Socialized medicine" may be a scary term, but in practice, Americans rather like government-run medicine. The Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the world's purest models of socialized medicine at work. In the Medicare system, covering about 44 million elderly or disabled Americans, the federal government makes the rules and pays the bills. And yet both of these" socialized" health care systems are enormously popular with the people who use them and consistently rate high in surveys of patient satisfaction."
Bigd: If I worked for the VA or the Military health care system I would not be working in socialized medicine.>>
DAR
I am sorry, but you are completely, 100%, confused. And that's putting it nicely. It doesn't get more socialized than the military and VA systems. No country has a system that is more socialized. It would not be possible to be MORE socialized.
Bigd: The medical services provided are compensation for service to the country.>>
DAR
That's nice. A social program, for those who serve and have served. Imagine countries that have a similar (but less socialized) program for all citizens. This is what our peer countries do. All of them. And it saves them a lot of money, wastes far less, covers everyone and gets better results.
Bigd: They are not free services for people who cannot afford their own health care.>>
DAR
They are free services and whether they can afford them or not, is irrelevant. That is how such systems work, and quite the point of them. With well over 100,000 veterans homeless (closer to 200k), there are a lot who would of course be a lot of veterans not able to afford health care.
But thanks to this US government social program, they are covered. This is something to take national pride in. Good job America! This is the country stepping up and doing what is right.
That there are so many homeless vets however, is not something to be proud of.
Bigd: You take what I said out of context.>>
DAR
Of course I did not. There is no context that can change what you said. So instead, you try to simply change/deny what you said.
Bigd: I said the care given is the best (and military medicine brings innovation to the civilian world) but that the administration leaves a lot to be desired.>>
DAR
Actually, you said the exact opposite of that. Again, as quoted above:
"...the administrative side and the costs leave LITTLE to be desired." --Bigd
Caps mine.
The antonym of "lot" is "little." There is only one.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/lot
D.
***
BLK: "...what am I doing talking morals with an atheist for?>>
DAR
Morality has nothing to do with theism. Moral questions pose the exact same problems for a God as they do for theists, atheists and everyone else.
As I told you in July, Plato pointed this out 2,400 years ago. You can learn about this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma --Euthyphro Dilemma
D.
***
BLK: so the states permission might not count for much->>
DAR
Still avoiding the question. California says NO to drilling off their coast. And your answer to this is... what? Fed overrules states?
Poor Blake. Stuck.
BLK: Nuclear, despite the fuel rod situation, is still very clean,>>
DAR
You said it was "the cleanest source of energy we can get...". It isn't. It isn't even close.
BLK: roadblock various factions from the federal govt. to the enviro- loons throw up...>>
DAR
Fortunately the folks who built and manage Chernobyl, didn't have to deal with such "loons."
Oh wait. Bad example.
BLK: WE dispose of waste underground at Yucca Mountain->>
DAR
There is no waste disposed or stored at Yucca Mountain.
BLK: do you have a better place?>>
DAR
Nope. But let's make a whole lot more of it and just hope for the best eh?
BLK: all the big talk died, much like the rest of his [Obama's] promises.>>
DAR
He made no promises regarding nuclear power. And speaking of keeping promises, he already kept a big one about lowering taxes:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/taxes --Obama Has Cut Taxes for 98.6 Percent of Working* Households**.
Quick! Time for a protest! Grab your teabags!
D.
***
Bigd: Ancedotal.>>
DAR
Absolutely. And completely consistent with my experience.
Bigd: I suppose all the news stories where they do find Canadians who want to scrap [their system]>>
DAR
This number is in the single digits, at most. When support for something as important and controversial as health, in a thriving democracy, is in the 90+ range, this means it is a smashing success.
Bigd: people in the medical profession say it is not good>>
DAR
You will always have some of those. The US system is so bad now, that about half of US *doctors* want single payer. They can't take it any more.
http://www.madashelldoctors.com/
Bigd: or politicians say it is running out of money or costing too>>
DAR
Heathcare systems always want more money. No exceptions.
Bigd: not as important as two schmoes with a camera...>>
DAR
Not at all. One should look to the best most comprehensive scientific analysis of these matters, which I have already done.
This was just a bonus to add a little flavor.
What you don't seem to grasp, like many Americans, is that the US system is so broken that people in other countries struggle to understand why the world's richest country has allowed it to get this way.
D.
***
Bigd; "Let the free market do its thing without the government...">>
DAR
This from a person who works in a completely socialized system of health care, and at the same time, says this care "is the best in the world."
And I agree.
Amazing what one cannot see when they are completely blinded by ideology.
D.
-------------------
Excerpt:
"A team of researchers recently set out to compare the quality of VHA care with that of care in a national sample by using a comprehensive quality-of-care measure.
*VA scores highest in quality of care*
The research team found that patients from the VHA scored 16 percentage points higher for adjusted overall quality...
For chronic disease care, the VA finished 13 percentage points higher...
For preventive care, the VA finished 20 points higher (64% vs. 44%; difference [CI, 12 to 28 percentage points]). The comparison the VA did not win was for acute care.
The VHA held the strongest advantage in processes targeted by VHA performance measurement, where the VA finished 23 percentage points ahead of the competition...
From the study, the research team concludes that patients receiving socialized, government-run medicine from the VHA received higher-quality care according to a broad measure...
What this study really says is that the more accurately we measure, the more we begin to see that socialized, government-run medical programs like the VA provide extremely high quality medical care.
...This recent study of the government-run VA medical system shows that contrary to those doubters, government-run healthcare leads in nearly every measurable category."
http://www.examiner.com/x-8543-SF-Healt ... healthcare --LINK.
DAR
You should be proud of the what these hard working people at the VA have accomplished for our veterans. Instead you ignorantly and baselessly bash them.
***
BLK: "The feds COULD trump the states in Federal waters...">>
DAR
Still avoiding the question.
I asked what YOU think should be done.
Should the Fed trump the states rights?
This is now the forth time I have ask you this question, in this thread.
You know the nice thing about being a freethinker and a person in honest and fearless pursuit of truth no matter where it leads?
I am never afraid of answering questions. Ever.
D.
**
Bigd: "I did not say it was the best system in the world only that the people provide the best care in the world.>>
DAR
And that is EXACTLY what I said you said, while quoting you verbatim. It's all above, in black in white. Including your distortion and completely misreading of your own claim:
“How many here have actually worked in military medicine? The care is the best in the world, the administrative side and the costs leave little to be desired. Military medicine is a bit of a specialty of mine.”
–Big Dog, Monday Jun 15th, 2009 at 23:09
Here is the link:
http://www.onebigdog.net/the-rangel-rop ... ent-132336
This means, according to you, that military medicine provides health care that is "the best in the world."
BigD: I specifically know about military medicine which is not socialized,>>
DAR
It is completely socialized. It could not be more socialized. The VA's system is also completely socialized medicine. It could not be more so.
I am sorry you don't know what you are talking about. But there it is.
D.
------------------------
"Socialized medicine has been tried in the United States, and it has proven superior to health care supplied by the private sector...
The socialized medicine to which I refer is the complex of hospitals managed by the Veterans Administration. Longman cites a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2003 comparing veterans' hospitals with fee-for-service health care funded by Medicare... By every criterion, the New England Journal found the veterans' hospitals to be superior...
Surveys by the National Committee for Quality Assurance and other organizations, have reached the same conclusion. The superiority of VA hospitals is so obvious that by now it ought to be common knowledge. But it isn't, because an insane political consensus that firmly opposes turning health care over to the government—because the government is presumed incapable of doing anything well—doesn't want to hear that government hospitals are outperforming private hospitals."
The Triumph of Socialized Medicine.
***
BigdL "There are plenty of VA stories for you to read by people who deal with the system (rather than just knowing the people like me). Read what they write.">>
DAR
Yes, let's take a careful look at that:
***
VA -- more than fine
WaPo reports on the sixth year in a row that the VA has outperformed the private sector in customer satisfaction:
Inpatient care received a rating of 83 on a 100-point scale; outpatient care got a rating of 80. In comparison, a similar survey of patients receiving private care found they rated their satisfaction at 73 for inpatient care and 75 for outpatient care.
Nicholson attributed the high ratings to the changes in the system, such as implementation of electronic records to reduce the risk of errors.
"Our system has become not only much more efficient, but safer," Nicholson said.
The VA is the only completely insulated government-run system in the U.S. Medicaid and Medicare, although their growth of spending tends to be much more predictable than the private sector, still exist within it. They rely on our fractured care delivery system, lack of preventative care, and inefficient system of paperwork and hard copy medical records. In the private sector, that means to uncontrolled spending, bad health outcomes, and especially medical errors.
The VA not only routinely out-performs the private sector, it arrived at that level of quality after years at the bottom of the barrel. When conservatives harp about Medicare Part D and conclude "government can't do anything right" -- here's another direction to point them. The only truly government-run system in the U.S., and it provides better care than all the others."
http://healthypolicy.typepad.com/blog/2 ... an_fi.html --LINK
***
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - Sept)
SEPTEMBER 9-12, 2009
****
[Public option will put private insurance out of business]
DAR
We have public schools.
We also have lots of private schools.
Obviously private schools haven't been put out of business... by public schools.
Best to have Robert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBi8A_HutII --explain it in simple terms.
***
"The juxtaposition of President Obama with the disrespectful Joe Wilson is a true example of where this country's political system stands today.
One major party is not perfect by a longshot but has a true leader with a plan, dignity, poise, intelligence, passion and respect.
A marginalized little party of angry Southern white men have no arguments so they propagate lies." --QK
If Obama's plan said nothing about the status of illegal immigrants, his claim would still be true, and Wilson's claim false. But it does specifically address their status:
---
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
---
Plain as day, black and white. Obama's claim, as follows from the transcript his speech, is correct:
"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."
This of course, makes Wilson the liar.
D.
***
BRB: "Everything Obama said was a lie."
DAR
When you are going to lie, I guess your strategy is to make it a really big one.
I would be so impressed, beyond words, if you could give even a single example, which of course you won't, because you cannot.
D.
***
OBAMA: “There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.”
"By using the new figure, Obama avoids criticism that he is including individuals, particularly healthy young people, who choose not to obtain health insurance."
DAR
And how is it a bad thing to refer specifically to a study that shows how many "Americans" are without insurance?
Quote: "Studies have shown that much preventive care — particularly tests like the ones Obama mentions — actually costs money instead of saving it."
DAR
Stupidity on stilts. Notice the spin "much." Much more preventative care saves money and saves lives. Specifically colonoscopy. As he "mentioned."
And this is supposed to be a link one can check?
"news.yahoo.com"
D.
***
BigD: "He evidently did not see the video of his party disrespecting Bush. I don’t think that one should justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior..."
DAR
But that's what you just did.
I love it when people contradict themselves in the very next sentence.
You are going to pretend you can't see the difference between a group collectively moaning, groaning, laughing or cheering (acceptable), and an individual yelling out and interrupting the president by calling him a liar?
I think this is a stupid and inconsequential distraction but... spare me. There is a difference.
D.
**
BLK: "The republicans have had several amendments, all were rejected out of hand..."
DAR
Again we see you don't know what you are talking about:
"Only 197 amendments were passed in the end—36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical."
http://www.slate.com/id/2223023/
Not, even, close.
D.
***
Speaking of contradictions and hypocrisy, here is a doosey from Limbaugh today:
From my Media Matters <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200909100044">summary of Limbaugh's show today</a>.
"Rush's adjectives for Obama's speech: Disgusting, reprehensible, predictable, grossly inappropriate, filled with lies and distortions, fraudulent, awful, petulant, childish, divisive, crude, disgusting"
And then later:
Rush says "vitriol" in health care discussion coming from others, not himself:
LIMBAUGH: "Mr. President, if you're gonna stop the name-calling, look inward, look inside the White House and the Old Executive Office Building and you tell your people to shut up. You tell your people to stop it. You get a hold of Paul Begala, you get a hold of James Carville, and you tell them to shut up. You get hold of your buddies over at MSNBC and you tell them to shut up. That's where the name-calling and the vitriol is coming from."
Breathtaking.
But you won't be able to see it of course.
D.
***
Bigd: "I did not contradict myself.">>
DAR
Of course you did. That's EXACTLY what you did. You tried to "justify bad behavior by pointing to bad behavior," when you said:
"Democrats booed and heckled him."
And:
“He evidently did not see the video of his party disrespecting Bush."
And in the very next sentence you said you don't do this:
"I don’t think that one should justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior…”
The fact that you went on to qualify your claim later, as anyone can see, doesn't change the fact that you did X, and then in the very next sentence you said you "don't think one should" do X.
D.
***
All irrelevant tantrum, smear and evasion except for this:
Bigd: "Wilson is correct."
DAR
No, he's not.
Joe Wilson of South Carolina said Obama lied, but he didn't.
D.
***
VIC: I cannot believe that you actually were born and raised and educated in the US.">>
DAR
Well, had you been paying any attention at all, you would already know I was born, raised and educated in Canada.
VIC: that he can insure millions more people without adding to the already skyrocketing deficit, is world-class chutzpa>>
DAR
No. You don't know what you are talking about. All of our peer countries, wealthy countries, every one of them, cover all of their populations and they all do so for a much lower percentage of GDP. There are a long list of well understood reasons for this and I have covered them many times. Get informed.
VIC: "...where he is going to conjure up the additional doctors, nurses, and hospitals needed to take care of millions more patients.">>
DAR
I know, lets teach the completely useless 470,000 desk jockey billing clerks how to do something useful.
Your question is idiotic and reveals again, that you don't even know where to begin. The US HAS adequate medical staff but even if it didn't, the private sector would provide just as it does in ALL of our peer countries.
Vic: government-run medical care in the United States>>
DAR
No one has proposed government run health care in the US. No one. Stop passing along lies.
VIC: can be expected to produce what government-run medical care in Canada,>>
DAR
Canada doesn't have government run health care. It has government run insurance. Doctors and hospitals are private.
And you should be so lucky. Canada has mediocre health care by world standards but it beats the US in every comprehensive analysis, easily. I wish it wasn't so, I wish I could brag about the US system, but I can't. It's an embarrassment and a disgrace.
VIC: Britain,>>
DAR
Britain does have government run health care (again DOC's are PRIVATE). And at 1/3 the cost it has recovery rates from most major diseases that are better than the US (The Healing of America, pg. 104).
VIC: delays of weeks or months to get many treatments,>>
DAR
30 million Americans don't get delays of "weeks or months", they get "go home and die." This is immoral. This is about to end.
VIC: not to mention arbitrary rationing decisions by bureaucrats.>>
DAR
In the US, if you are lucky, you get to have arbitrary rationing decisions by a corporation that makes more money if they deny your care.
And they are really, really good at it. Wal-Street requires that they be very good at it.
If you are one of the 30 million that aren't in this "lucky" group, you get the "go home and die." This is unchristian, immoral and it is about to end.
D.
-------------------
"Jesus is a healer."
Excerpt:
"Healing and teaching were Jesus of Nazareth’s most characteristic activities. Healer-Evangelist Graham Jones documents that nearly 40 percent of the narrative verses in the New Testament are about healing. Twenty-six of the 35 miracles of Jesus were healings (bible.org).
Jesus healed anyone, neighbor or foreigner. Once he healed 10 lepers, the castoffs of the health care system of Jesus’ day. Of the 10, only one returned to thank Jesus: a Samaritan - the first century version of an illegal alien.
The disciples continued Jesus’ work of healing. The Acts of the Apostles tells 28 stories of healing through the ministries of the disciples. The climactic vision of the heavenly Jerusalem in the book of Revelation sees a tree growing at the center of the city, with leaves for the healing of the nations.
Healing and health care is something that Christians support. That is why so many churches and denominations have made statements supporting the current discussion about how to improve our health care system.
For Christians, it is immoral that 50 million of our neighbors have no health insurance while profitable insurance companies make millions of dollars denying care."
--Lowell Grisham is an Episcopal priest from Fayetteville, Arkansas.
The rest of his excellent article here.
***
BLK: "What about when Harry Reid called Bush a liar, Darrel?">>
DAR
Let's see it. Make your case. Did he yell it at him during a speech before Congress? Of course not. Hang on, I'll check for you.
"During the 2000 campaign, Bush — at the urging of Nevada-based consultants — issued a statement in which he said he would not move forward on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump unless there was “sound science” to back it up. After Bush assumed the presidency..., he went forward with the dump, even though there were myriad scientific questions left to answer."
So in Reid's opinion Bush lied about this. That's his opinion. He also called Bush a loser. He apologized for that but would not about the liar observation. Of course Reid is entitled to his opinion. Since he didn't yell it at Bush and interrupt a speech before a joint session of Congress, your example/comparison fails. No one is complaining that Wilson thinks Obama lied. The complaint is the venue and manner he chose to deliver his opinion.
BLK: Was that acceptable?>>
DAR
Of course.
BLK: Hussein has lied repeatedly and intentionally.>>
DAR
Still waiting for a *single* example, little grasshopper.
BLK: Can YOU say “Hypocrite”?>>
DAR
Yep. Sure can. Speaking of that... your Wilson buddy apparently <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/11 ... 586">voted to support funding for illegal immigrant health care</a>.
Is that hypocrisy or irony? Maybe both. A twofer as they say.
D.
***
Oh good, Blake has some examples of supposed "lies." Let's see how they hold up.
BLK: "He lied about the illegal aliens not being covered">>
DAR
Nope. He was exactly right.
Fact Check:
"THE FACTS: The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, and they could also buy into a new government-run insurance plan if Congress creates one. But unlike legal residents, they wouldn't get federal subsidies to help them. The bill's exact language: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully in the United States." Health care legislation in the Senate is also being crafted to exclude illegal immigrants from coverage."
More detailed debunk here:
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/vi ... OT-Covered
BLK: "he lied when he said the government option leads to “More” choice,">>
DAR
Obviously true. Instead of only having the option of the private for profit system, people would have one additional choice. These terrifies the insurance industry so much they have dropped 1/3 of a billion in the last eight months to buy influence and misinform the gullible. They do this because they don't want you to find out that they aren't needed and actually get in the way of good care and waste/cost the system $100's billions (paperwork).
All of our peer countries figured this out years ago, and while covering everyone for less and getting better results, they also offer FAR more choice than US. Most of them also have MORE competition.
BLK: "he “revised” his math">>
DAR
He quoted a different source which referenced only Americans. This took away your "illegal alien" canard which was never accurate anyway (no one has a foggy idea how many there are).
BLK: "he lied about the death panels">>
DAR
This is astonishingly dishonest and irresponsible on your part. The fellow that introduced this amendment? Republican Johnny Isakson. What does he say?
"Anyone who would interpret an end-of-life directive or a living will as euthanasia is nuts."
He's talking to you.
LINK
BLK: "[Obama] said that the government would not get in between your doctor">>
DAR
Exactly right again. Right now, your doctor has to fight with your insurance company (and their horde of billing clerks) for every little procedure. Almost 20% to 30% of claims are denied (appeals lowers this some).
Sensible countries would never stand for this nonsense. All basic, standard care, is covered. No arguments. No BS. Anything else is absurd. Our system is absurd.
BLK: "he says there will be a government panel to “oversee” the patient -physician relationship.”>>
DAR
You'll have to be more specific on that one. Perhaps this refers to end of life care where, of course, we would want to have some oversight so there is no funny business.
Your examples of supposed lies weren't very good but thanks for trying.
D.
***
Bigd: "the concern is for 30 million people who go home and die">>
DAR
Please be accurate. The 30 million refers to Americans without insurance, not the number of people who "go home and die."
Bigd: did you change from 47 million like Obama)>>
DAR
The 30m number and 47m number refer to measurements of different groups. It's entirely appropriate to refer to one or the other while specifying which one you are referring to.
Bigd: We do not need to overhaul the entire system to cover them.">>
DAR
Incidentally, aside from the waste, the crappy outcomes and the 18,000 Americans dying per year from lack of access, fixing the cost of our health care is NOT an option. If the costs are not controlled, and in a big way, the cost of medicare will in a few short years completely swamp/devour the budget. There is no controversy about this. If you didn't know this I encourage you to get educated about the US debt. I can post the links again.
Bigd: Government does not belong in business.>>
DAR
Then why don't we have our Fire stations and Police run for profit? Would you like me to explain to you why? It's the same thing. The idea that basic, necessary medical care should be a huge multi-billion dollar cash cow that makes money on withholding care from citizens is absurd, immoral and something every civilized country on the planet has discarded. Except for the US, with disastrous results.
I am going to type the following in by hand for you from a book I just read. Please read it and then tell me if you are proud of your country.
***
"Prologue: A Moral Question
If Nikki WHite had been a resident of any other rich country, she would be alive today.
Around the time she graduated from college, Monique A. "Nikki" White contracted systemic lupus erythematosis; that's a serious disease, but on that modern medicine knows how to manage. If this bright, feisty, dazzling young woman had lived in, say Japan--the world's second-richest nation--or Germany (third richest), or Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, Sweden, etc., the health care systems there would have given her the standard treatment for lupus, and she could have lived a normal life span. But Nikki White was a citizen of the world's richest country, the United States of America. Once she was sick, she couldn't get health insurance. Like tens of millions of her fellow Americans, she had too much money to qualify for health care under welfare, but too much money to qualify for health care under welfare, but too little money to pay for the drugs and doctors she needed to stay alive. She spent the last months of her life frantically writing letters
and filling out forms, pleading for help. When she died, Nikki White was thirty-two years old.
"Nikki didn't die from lupus," Dr. Amylyn Crawford told me. "Nikki died from complications of the failing American health care system. It was a lack of access to health care that killed Nikki White."
--The Healing of America: The global quest for better, cheaper, and fairer health care, pg. 1
More details here, if you can stomach it.
View a picture of her here.
D.
***
Bigd: "the courts will say that the law does not forbid them from getting the care and having it covered.">>
DAR
The law, specifically, in black in white, forbids this. Why are you pretending to not be able to understand simple, plain, English?
"ADAIR: Obama is right. When you look at the bill, it does go to some lengths to make sure that illegal immigrants do not get the credits for the health care exchange that would allow them to get free care. They'd have to pay for it, like everybody else. False for Wilson." --Politifact
"THE FACTS: The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, and they could also buy into a new government-run insurance plan if Congress creates one. But unlike legal residents, they wouldn't get federal subsidies to help them. The bill's exact language: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully in the United States." Health care legislation in the Senate is also being crafted to exclude illegal immigrants from coverage."
Bigd: "why did the Democrats vote against specific language that would have codified it?>>
DAR
I don't know. Maybe they thought the bill is long and complex enough without trying to do immigration reform too.
Let me tell you a secret. The US has an immigration problem. Your favorite party, the one that likes to pretend it cares about this, had control of all branches of government for six years. They did nothing.
This could be solved in five minutes. These 10-15 million people live, and work, somewhere. Fine the employers, fine the people who rent to them. Done. This hasn't happened because we are invested in and addicted to our immigration problem. Especially your favorite party because they want these people to pluck their chickens and pick their strawberries.
D.
***
Bigd: Darrel is waiting for a single example of Obama lying.>>
DAR
It's really not too much to ask.
Bigd: Many have been shown but Darrel explains them away.>>
DAR
You need one that can hold up to scrutiny. You don't have one of those.
Bigd: "[Dar says] well he was campaigning then so it does not count">>
DAR
I have never said your example does not count. I show that your examples are bogus, based upon false information, or just a childish misreading of plain English. And I do this easily.
Bigd: some such excuse to realize they cannot see that Obambi lies?>>
DAR
Still waiting for a *single* example.
Hit me with your best shot.
D.
---------------
"You know the difficulty with a president when he makes a statement is that everybody checks to see whether it is true."
--Richard Nixon, National Prayer Breakfast, 1974
***
VIC: "you cannot change the truth about what is happening in this country and who is responsible for it.">>
DAR
I completely agree Victoria. Obama campaigned on positive change and now he is following through on his promises. And for sensible people who want to see America succeed, in the US and around the world, we are very thankful.
D.
------
"Median percentage of people in 21 nations surveyed who trust President Obama to "do the right thing" in world affairs: 71
Median percentage of respondents who said the same thing about George W. Bush in March 2008: 17
--Harpers Magazine, Oct. 2009, pg. 13
***
BLK: “Our” party, if you will, had a couple of wars going on,>>
DAR
One of them with the wrong county. Oops. That was a boo.
BLK: and were busy keeping [you] secure,>>
DAR
Actually, that was a colossal failure. The greatest security breech and attack on American soil happened under Bush's completely negligent and incompetent governance. Bush (who wouldn't even take the time to have a meeting with his counter-terrorism coordinator), and Cheney (who never even bothered to chair a single meeting of the anti-terrorism taskforce he was suppose to led) COMPLETELY dropped the ball and failed to do their jobs.
Oh, and a common lie in your circles is that they kept us safe after screwing the pooch on 9/11. But that's not true either. People who say this are forgetting the anthrax attacks.
BLK: tort reform has had scant mention,>>
DAR
Tort reform was specifically singled out and given special mention in Obama's congressional address. Tort reform is a pimple on the arse of our healthcare problems.
D.
***
Abortions are a legal medical procedure. If you don't like that, work to change the law.
Sometimes I feel sorry that your tax dollars may, in some instances be used (not in this bill, but in other cases) to fund something you consider immoral.
Then I remember that my tax money is used to fight immoral and needless wars that republicans enjoy so much.
Then I don't feel so bad.
Can't pick and choose where your tax dollars go. That's the way it is.
D.
***
BLK: "the law CANNOT specifically target an individual group for exclusion...">>
DAR
The law does so all the time. Would you like a bunch of examples or would you like to think of a few yourself?
BLK: "everyone else would get healthcare, illegal aliens would have to be included"
DAR
Nonsense.
BLK: "Wilson’s call of “Liar” was correct"
DAR
Anyone who believes that is a loon. No exceptions.
Obama's three claims:
“There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants [true]. This, too, is false [correct] – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.” [true]
D.
***
BLK: ALL the sentence relevantly says is,” Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits”>>
DAR
Which is why Obama's comment, as follows, is true:
"...the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."
And don't forget his first sentence which describes the specific lie he was knocking down:
"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants..."
Even if the bill didn't contain this clear statement refuting you, his claim could still be true. The fact that it is there, in black and white plain as day, makes your assertion even more false than normal.
BLK: "Constitution specifically PROHIBITS discrimination">>
DAR
Let me know if you would like examples refuting your claim.
D.
***
Bigd: "You like to blame Bush...">>
DAR
Who was president when the greatest security breech and attack on American soil was allowed to happen? Do you remember?
Bigd: "You like to throw out these accusations but you cannot prove these claims.">>
DAR
Give me an example of a claim I made that I cannot prove. Be specific. The truth is in the details. I don't make claims I can't back up, and details are my specialty, not yours.
Bigd: "Clinton had 3, count them, 3 chances to take out OBL">>
DAR
Actually, that's rightwing rubbish, debunked over and over, including by Bush's own "counter-terrorism coordinator." Let me know if you would like me to dismantle it piece by piece for you.
Here's a nice intro bit to give you the basics:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/d ... nce_1.html
D.
***
Bigd: "they are not citizens and have no right to anything. They are entitled, per the courts, to certain protections.">>
DAR
Again you contradict yourself from one sentence to the next.
If they are "entitled to certain protections" (as they are), then it is not true that they "have no right to anything."
QED.
Bigd: "If you cannot determine their status then they will get health care. That follows.">>
DAR
No, actually it doesn't.
Bigd: If they will be forced to use the ER where they must be seen">>
DAR
Wrong again. You repeat a common myth. People are turned away from ER ALL the time (unless they are dying or giving birth).
Bigd: and the government will reimburse for those visits">>
DAR
Sometimes. Often the hospital cost shifts to others forcing us all to pay more.
Best to fix health care in a health care bill and fix immigration issues in an immigration bill. See if you can tamp down your hatred of those humans without status long enough for us to fix the health care problems.
D.
***
Bigd: "Darrel, no war is illegal if it is approved by Congress.">>
DAR
I didn't say "illegal" above, I said immoral. Do you understand the difference?
Bigd: "They are not necessary medical procedures. They are elective.">>
DAR
Rubbish. Would you like examples of women who will die if they can't get an abortion or are you so dense you don't know of any yourself?
Years ago I had a huge email debate with a minister about abortion years. I asked him who we should save if we have to choose between the life of the mother or fetus. He was a coward and refused to answer the question. At the time I had a customer who was strongly pro-choice and a nurse (RN). I mentioned this debate and took the chance of asking her if she knew of any examples where an abortion would be necessary to save the life of the mother. She knew lots of them. Now I do too.
Bigd: part of the Constitution that says anything about abortion.>>
DAR
Congress can make laws. Sometimes they make laws regarding abortion. This is grade school stuff.
Bigd: Abortion falls under the 10th Amendment.>>
DAR
So you're a "tenther" eh? Why am I not surprised.
D.
***
NOTES:
Section 241: "The Commissioner through the Health Insurance Exchange or through another public entity under an arrangement made with the Commissioner shall make a determination as to eligibility of an individual for affordability credits under this subtitle."
In addition, subsidies through the plan are coordinated through Medicare which already has strict proof of eligibility requirements in place.
Of course section 246 covers excluding illegals: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments or affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."
****
[Public option will put private insurance out of business]
DAR
We have public schools.
We also have lots of private schools.
Obviously private schools haven't been put out of business... by public schools.
Best to have Robert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBi8A_HutII --explain it in simple terms.
***
"The juxtaposition of President Obama with the disrespectful Joe Wilson is a true example of where this country's political system stands today.
One major party is not perfect by a longshot but has a true leader with a plan, dignity, poise, intelligence, passion and respect.
A marginalized little party of angry Southern white men have no arguments so they propagate lies." --QK
If Obama's plan said nothing about the status of illegal immigrants, his claim would still be true, and Wilson's claim false. But it does specifically address their status:
---
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
---
Plain as day, black and white. Obama's claim, as follows from the transcript his speech, is correct:
"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."
This of course, makes Wilson the liar.
D.
***
BRB: "Everything Obama said was a lie."
DAR
When you are going to lie, I guess your strategy is to make it a really big one.
I would be so impressed, beyond words, if you could give even a single example, which of course you won't, because you cannot.
D.
***
OBAMA: “There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.”
"By using the new figure, Obama avoids criticism that he is including individuals, particularly healthy young people, who choose not to obtain health insurance."
DAR
And how is it a bad thing to refer specifically to a study that shows how many "Americans" are without insurance?
Quote: "Studies have shown that much preventive care — particularly tests like the ones Obama mentions — actually costs money instead of saving it."
DAR
Stupidity on stilts. Notice the spin "much." Much more preventative care saves money and saves lives. Specifically colonoscopy. As he "mentioned."
And this is supposed to be a link one can check?
"news.yahoo.com"
D.
***
BigD: "He evidently did not see the video of his party disrespecting Bush. I don’t think that one should justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior..."
DAR
But that's what you just did.
I love it when people contradict themselves in the very next sentence.
You are going to pretend you can't see the difference between a group collectively moaning, groaning, laughing or cheering (acceptable), and an individual yelling out and interrupting the president by calling him a liar?
I think this is a stupid and inconsequential distraction but... spare me. There is a difference.
D.
**
BLK: "The republicans have had several amendments, all were rejected out of hand..."
DAR
Again we see you don't know what you are talking about:
"Only 197 amendments were passed in the end—36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical."
http://www.slate.com/id/2223023/
Not, even, close.
D.
***
Speaking of contradictions and hypocrisy, here is a doosey from Limbaugh today:
From my Media Matters <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200909100044">summary of Limbaugh's show today</a>.
"Rush's adjectives for Obama's speech: Disgusting, reprehensible, predictable, grossly inappropriate, filled with lies and distortions, fraudulent, awful, petulant, childish, divisive, crude, disgusting"
And then later:
Rush says "vitriol" in health care discussion coming from others, not himself:
LIMBAUGH: "Mr. President, if you're gonna stop the name-calling, look inward, look inside the White House and the Old Executive Office Building and you tell your people to shut up. You tell your people to stop it. You get a hold of Paul Begala, you get a hold of James Carville, and you tell them to shut up. You get hold of your buddies over at MSNBC and you tell them to shut up. That's where the name-calling and the vitriol is coming from."
Breathtaking.
But you won't be able to see it of course.
D.
***
Bigd: "I did not contradict myself.">>
DAR
Of course you did. That's EXACTLY what you did. You tried to "justify bad behavior by pointing to bad behavior," when you said:
"Democrats booed and heckled him."
And:
“He evidently did not see the video of his party disrespecting Bush."
And in the very next sentence you said you don't do this:
"I don’t think that one should justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior…”
The fact that you went on to qualify your claim later, as anyone can see, doesn't change the fact that you did X, and then in the very next sentence you said you "don't think one should" do X.
D.
***
All irrelevant tantrum, smear and evasion except for this:
Bigd: "Wilson is correct."
DAR
No, he's not.
Joe Wilson of South Carolina said Obama lied, but he didn't.
D.
***
VIC: I cannot believe that you actually were born and raised and educated in the US.">>
DAR
Well, had you been paying any attention at all, you would already know I was born, raised and educated in Canada.
VIC: that he can insure millions more people without adding to the already skyrocketing deficit, is world-class chutzpa>>
DAR
No. You don't know what you are talking about. All of our peer countries, wealthy countries, every one of them, cover all of their populations and they all do so for a much lower percentage of GDP. There are a long list of well understood reasons for this and I have covered them many times. Get informed.
VIC: "...where he is going to conjure up the additional doctors, nurses, and hospitals needed to take care of millions more patients.">>
DAR
I know, lets teach the completely useless 470,000 desk jockey billing clerks how to do something useful.
Your question is idiotic and reveals again, that you don't even know where to begin. The US HAS adequate medical staff but even if it didn't, the private sector would provide just as it does in ALL of our peer countries.
Vic: government-run medical care in the United States>>
DAR
No one has proposed government run health care in the US. No one. Stop passing along lies.
VIC: can be expected to produce what government-run medical care in Canada,>>
DAR
Canada doesn't have government run health care. It has government run insurance. Doctors and hospitals are private.
And you should be so lucky. Canada has mediocre health care by world standards but it beats the US in every comprehensive analysis, easily. I wish it wasn't so, I wish I could brag about the US system, but I can't. It's an embarrassment and a disgrace.
VIC: Britain,>>
DAR
Britain does have government run health care (again DOC's are PRIVATE). And at 1/3 the cost it has recovery rates from most major diseases that are better than the US (The Healing of America, pg. 104).
VIC: delays of weeks or months to get many treatments,>>
DAR
30 million Americans don't get delays of "weeks or months", they get "go home and die." This is immoral. This is about to end.
VIC: not to mention arbitrary rationing decisions by bureaucrats.>>
DAR
In the US, if you are lucky, you get to have arbitrary rationing decisions by a corporation that makes more money if they deny your care.
And they are really, really good at it. Wal-Street requires that they be very good at it.
If you are one of the 30 million that aren't in this "lucky" group, you get the "go home and die." This is unchristian, immoral and it is about to end.
D.
-------------------
"Jesus is a healer."
Excerpt:
"Healing and teaching were Jesus of Nazareth’s most characteristic activities. Healer-Evangelist Graham Jones documents that nearly 40 percent of the narrative verses in the New Testament are about healing. Twenty-six of the 35 miracles of Jesus were healings (bible.org).
Jesus healed anyone, neighbor or foreigner. Once he healed 10 lepers, the castoffs of the health care system of Jesus’ day. Of the 10, only one returned to thank Jesus: a Samaritan - the first century version of an illegal alien.
The disciples continued Jesus’ work of healing. The Acts of the Apostles tells 28 stories of healing through the ministries of the disciples. The climactic vision of the heavenly Jerusalem in the book of Revelation sees a tree growing at the center of the city, with leaves for the healing of the nations.
Healing and health care is something that Christians support. That is why so many churches and denominations have made statements supporting the current discussion about how to improve our health care system.
For Christians, it is immoral that 50 million of our neighbors have no health insurance while profitable insurance companies make millions of dollars denying care."
--Lowell Grisham is an Episcopal priest from Fayetteville, Arkansas.
The rest of his excellent article here.
***
BLK: "What about when Harry Reid called Bush a liar, Darrel?">>
DAR
Let's see it. Make your case. Did he yell it at him during a speech before Congress? Of course not. Hang on, I'll check for you.
"During the 2000 campaign, Bush — at the urging of Nevada-based consultants — issued a statement in which he said he would not move forward on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump unless there was “sound science” to back it up. After Bush assumed the presidency..., he went forward with the dump, even though there were myriad scientific questions left to answer."
So in Reid's opinion Bush lied about this. That's his opinion. He also called Bush a loser. He apologized for that but would not about the liar observation. Of course Reid is entitled to his opinion. Since he didn't yell it at Bush and interrupt a speech before a joint session of Congress, your example/comparison fails. No one is complaining that Wilson thinks Obama lied. The complaint is the venue and manner he chose to deliver his opinion.
BLK: Was that acceptable?>>
DAR
Of course.
BLK: Hussein has lied repeatedly and intentionally.>>
DAR
Still waiting for a *single* example, little grasshopper.
BLK: Can YOU say “Hypocrite”?>>
DAR
Yep. Sure can. Speaking of that... your Wilson buddy apparently <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/11 ... 586">voted to support funding for illegal immigrant health care</a>.
Is that hypocrisy or irony? Maybe both. A twofer as they say.
D.
***
Oh good, Blake has some examples of supposed "lies." Let's see how they hold up.
BLK: "He lied about the illegal aliens not being covered">>
DAR
Nope. He was exactly right.
Fact Check:
"THE FACTS: The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, and they could also buy into a new government-run insurance plan if Congress creates one. But unlike legal residents, they wouldn't get federal subsidies to help them. The bill's exact language: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully in the United States." Health care legislation in the Senate is also being crafted to exclude illegal immigrants from coverage."
More detailed debunk here:
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/vi ... OT-Covered
BLK: "he lied when he said the government option leads to “More” choice,">>
DAR
Obviously true. Instead of only having the option of the private for profit system, people would have one additional choice. These terrifies the insurance industry so much they have dropped 1/3 of a billion in the last eight months to buy influence and misinform the gullible. They do this because they don't want you to find out that they aren't needed and actually get in the way of good care and waste/cost the system $100's billions (paperwork).
All of our peer countries figured this out years ago, and while covering everyone for less and getting better results, they also offer FAR more choice than US. Most of them also have MORE competition.
BLK: "he “revised” his math">>
DAR
He quoted a different source which referenced only Americans. This took away your "illegal alien" canard which was never accurate anyway (no one has a foggy idea how many there are).
BLK: "he lied about the death panels">>
DAR
This is astonishingly dishonest and irresponsible on your part. The fellow that introduced this amendment? Republican Johnny Isakson. What does he say?
"Anyone who would interpret an end-of-life directive or a living will as euthanasia is nuts."
He's talking to you.
LINK
BLK: "[Obama] said that the government would not get in between your doctor">>
DAR
Exactly right again. Right now, your doctor has to fight with your insurance company (and their horde of billing clerks) for every little procedure. Almost 20% to 30% of claims are denied (appeals lowers this some).
Sensible countries would never stand for this nonsense. All basic, standard care, is covered. No arguments. No BS. Anything else is absurd. Our system is absurd.
BLK: "he says there will be a government panel to “oversee” the patient -physician relationship.”>>
DAR
You'll have to be more specific on that one. Perhaps this refers to end of life care where, of course, we would want to have some oversight so there is no funny business.
Your examples of supposed lies weren't very good but thanks for trying.
D.
***
Bigd: "the concern is for 30 million people who go home and die">>
DAR
Please be accurate. The 30 million refers to Americans without insurance, not the number of people who "go home and die."
Bigd: did you change from 47 million like Obama)>>
DAR
The 30m number and 47m number refer to measurements of different groups. It's entirely appropriate to refer to one or the other while specifying which one you are referring to.
Bigd: We do not need to overhaul the entire system to cover them.">>
DAR
Incidentally, aside from the waste, the crappy outcomes and the 18,000 Americans dying per year from lack of access, fixing the cost of our health care is NOT an option. If the costs are not controlled, and in a big way, the cost of medicare will in a few short years completely swamp/devour the budget. There is no controversy about this. If you didn't know this I encourage you to get educated about the US debt. I can post the links again.
Bigd: Government does not belong in business.>>
DAR
Then why don't we have our Fire stations and Police run for profit? Would you like me to explain to you why? It's the same thing. The idea that basic, necessary medical care should be a huge multi-billion dollar cash cow that makes money on withholding care from citizens is absurd, immoral and something every civilized country on the planet has discarded. Except for the US, with disastrous results.
I am going to type the following in by hand for you from a book I just read. Please read it and then tell me if you are proud of your country.
***
"Prologue: A Moral Question
If Nikki WHite had been a resident of any other rich country, she would be alive today.
Around the time she graduated from college, Monique A. "Nikki" White contracted systemic lupus erythematosis; that's a serious disease, but on that modern medicine knows how to manage. If this bright, feisty, dazzling young woman had lived in, say Japan--the world's second-richest nation--or Germany (third richest), or Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, Sweden, etc., the health care systems there would have given her the standard treatment for lupus, and she could have lived a normal life span. But Nikki White was a citizen of the world's richest country, the United States of America. Once she was sick, she couldn't get health insurance. Like tens of millions of her fellow Americans, she had too much money to qualify for health care under welfare, but too much money to qualify for health care under welfare, but too little money to pay for the drugs and doctors she needed to stay alive. She spent the last months of her life frantically writing letters
and filling out forms, pleading for help. When she died, Nikki White was thirty-two years old.
"Nikki didn't die from lupus," Dr. Amylyn Crawford told me. "Nikki died from complications of the failing American health care system. It was a lack of access to health care that killed Nikki White."
--The Healing of America: The global quest for better, cheaper, and fairer health care, pg. 1
More details here, if you can stomach it.
View a picture of her here.
D.
***
Bigd: "the courts will say that the law does not forbid them from getting the care and having it covered.">>
DAR
The law, specifically, in black in white, forbids this. Why are you pretending to not be able to understand simple, plain, English?
"ADAIR: Obama is right. When you look at the bill, it does go to some lengths to make sure that illegal immigrants do not get the credits for the health care exchange that would allow them to get free care. They'd have to pay for it, like everybody else. False for Wilson." --Politifact
"THE FACTS: The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, and they could also buy into a new government-run insurance plan if Congress creates one. But unlike legal residents, they wouldn't get federal subsidies to help them. The bill's exact language: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully in the United States." Health care legislation in the Senate is also being crafted to exclude illegal immigrants from coverage."
Bigd: "why did the Democrats vote against specific language that would have codified it?>>
DAR
I don't know. Maybe they thought the bill is long and complex enough without trying to do immigration reform too.
Let me tell you a secret. The US has an immigration problem. Your favorite party, the one that likes to pretend it cares about this, had control of all branches of government for six years. They did nothing.
This could be solved in five minutes. These 10-15 million people live, and work, somewhere. Fine the employers, fine the people who rent to them. Done. This hasn't happened because we are invested in and addicted to our immigration problem. Especially your favorite party because they want these people to pluck their chickens and pick their strawberries.
D.
***
Bigd: Darrel is waiting for a single example of Obama lying.>>
DAR
It's really not too much to ask.
Bigd: Many have been shown but Darrel explains them away.>>
DAR
You need one that can hold up to scrutiny. You don't have one of those.
Bigd: "[Dar says] well he was campaigning then so it does not count">>
DAR
I have never said your example does not count. I show that your examples are bogus, based upon false information, or just a childish misreading of plain English. And I do this easily.
Bigd: some such excuse to realize they cannot see that Obambi lies?>>
DAR
Still waiting for a *single* example.
Hit me with your best shot.
D.
---------------
"You know the difficulty with a president when he makes a statement is that everybody checks to see whether it is true."
--Richard Nixon, National Prayer Breakfast, 1974
***
VIC: "you cannot change the truth about what is happening in this country and who is responsible for it.">>
DAR
I completely agree Victoria. Obama campaigned on positive change and now he is following through on his promises. And for sensible people who want to see America succeed, in the US and around the world, we are very thankful.
D.
------
"Median percentage of people in 21 nations surveyed who trust President Obama to "do the right thing" in world affairs: 71
Median percentage of respondents who said the same thing about George W. Bush in March 2008: 17
--Harpers Magazine, Oct. 2009, pg. 13
***
BLK: “Our” party, if you will, had a couple of wars going on,>>
DAR
One of them with the wrong county. Oops. That was a boo.
BLK: and were busy keeping [you] secure,>>
DAR
Actually, that was a colossal failure. The greatest security breech and attack on American soil happened under Bush's completely negligent and incompetent governance. Bush (who wouldn't even take the time to have a meeting with his counter-terrorism coordinator), and Cheney (who never even bothered to chair a single meeting of the anti-terrorism taskforce he was suppose to led) COMPLETELY dropped the ball and failed to do their jobs.
Oh, and a common lie in your circles is that they kept us safe after screwing the pooch on 9/11. But that's not true either. People who say this are forgetting the anthrax attacks.
BLK: tort reform has had scant mention,>>
DAR
Tort reform was specifically singled out and given special mention in Obama's congressional address. Tort reform is a pimple on the arse of our healthcare problems.
D.
***
Abortions are a legal medical procedure. If you don't like that, work to change the law.
Sometimes I feel sorry that your tax dollars may, in some instances be used (not in this bill, but in other cases) to fund something you consider immoral.
Then I remember that my tax money is used to fight immoral and needless wars that republicans enjoy so much.
Then I don't feel so bad.
Can't pick and choose where your tax dollars go. That's the way it is.
D.
***
BLK: "the law CANNOT specifically target an individual group for exclusion...">>
DAR
The law does so all the time. Would you like a bunch of examples or would you like to think of a few yourself?
BLK: "everyone else would get healthcare, illegal aliens would have to be included"
DAR
Nonsense.
BLK: "Wilson’s call of “Liar” was correct"
DAR
Anyone who believes that is a loon. No exceptions.
Obama's three claims:
“There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants [true]. This, too, is false [correct] – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.” [true]
D.
***
BLK: ALL the sentence relevantly says is,” Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits”>>
DAR
Which is why Obama's comment, as follows, is true:
"...the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."
And don't forget his first sentence which describes the specific lie he was knocking down:
"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants..."
Even if the bill didn't contain this clear statement refuting you, his claim could still be true. The fact that it is there, in black and white plain as day, makes your assertion even more false than normal.
BLK: "Constitution specifically PROHIBITS discrimination">>
DAR
Let me know if you would like examples refuting your claim.
D.
***
Bigd: "You like to blame Bush...">>
DAR
Who was president when the greatest security breech and attack on American soil was allowed to happen? Do you remember?
Bigd: "You like to throw out these accusations but you cannot prove these claims.">>
DAR
Give me an example of a claim I made that I cannot prove. Be specific. The truth is in the details. I don't make claims I can't back up, and details are my specialty, not yours.
Bigd: "Clinton had 3, count them, 3 chances to take out OBL">>
DAR
Actually, that's rightwing rubbish, debunked over and over, including by Bush's own "counter-terrorism coordinator." Let me know if you would like me to dismantle it piece by piece for you.
Here's a nice intro bit to give you the basics:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/d ... nce_1.html
D.
***
Bigd: "they are not citizens and have no right to anything. They are entitled, per the courts, to certain protections.">>
DAR
Again you contradict yourself from one sentence to the next.
If they are "entitled to certain protections" (as they are), then it is not true that they "have no right to anything."
QED.
Bigd: "If you cannot determine their status then they will get health care. That follows.">>
DAR
No, actually it doesn't.
Bigd: If they will be forced to use the ER where they must be seen">>
DAR
Wrong again. You repeat a common myth. People are turned away from ER ALL the time (unless they are dying or giving birth).
Bigd: and the government will reimburse for those visits">>
DAR
Sometimes. Often the hospital cost shifts to others forcing us all to pay more.
Best to fix health care in a health care bill and fix immigration issues in an immigration bill. See if you can tamp down your hatred of those humans without status long enough for us to fix the health care problems.
D.
***
Bigd: "Darrel, no war is illegal if it is approved by Congress.">>
DAR
I didn't say "illegal" above, I said immoral. Do you understand the difference?
Bigd: "They are not necessary medical procedures. They are elective.">>
DAR
Rubbish. Would you like examples of women who will die if they can't get an abortion or are you so dense you don't know of any yourself?
Years ago I had a huge email debate with a minister about abortion years. I asked him who we should save if we have to choose between the life of the mother or fetus. He was a coward and refused to answer the question. At the time I had a customer who was strongly pro-choice and a nurse (RN). I mentioned this debate and took the chance of asking her if she knew of any examples where an abortion would be necessary to save the life of the mother. She knew lots of them. Now I do too.
Bigd: part of the Constitution that says anything about abortion.>>
DAR
Congress can make laws. Sometimes they make laws regarding abortion. This is grade school stuff.
Bigd: Abortion falls under the 10th Amendment.>>
DAR
So you're a "tenther" eh? Why am I not surprised.
D.
***
NOTES:
Section 241: "The Commissioner through the Health Insurance Exchange or through another public entity under an arrangement made with the Commissioner shall make a determination as to eligibility of an individual for affordability credits under this subtitle."
In addition, subsidies through the plan are coordinated through Medicare which already has strict proof of eligibility requirements in place.
Of course section 246 covers excluding illegals: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments or affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - Sept)
SEPTEMBER 13-17, 2009
***
Bigd: "Illegals will get care">>
DAR
I hope you are right. It's what Jesus would want.
D.
-------------
"The Epistle of James tells us, “If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill’ and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that?” If a brother or sister lacks health care, and one of you says, ‘Go in peace; get well and take your medications,’ and yet you give them no way to access their care or their prescriptions, what is the good of that?
Christians care about our neighbors. Jesus taught us to love our neighbors as ourselves. Christians are pro-life, and therefore we are pro-heath care. Christians support things that are good for children and families. Christian values have helped shape our society. Some Christians even claim that this is a Christian nation. What better way to prove ours is a nation that lives out Christian values than to insure that everyone has access to basic health care. Everyone.
What would Jesus do? Who would Jesus leave out? Who would Jesus refuse to heal?"
--Lowell Grisham is an Episcopal priest from Fayetteville. And he's not a cold-hearted hypocrite.
***
DAR
Your same old lies about Clinton providing nukes [to Korea], and of course you don't even bother to try to back it up.
Reality: Bush broke with Clinton's method of talking to the loon, and broke agreements, and refused to talk until 2006 (when they popped off their nuke). This is when Bush sets aside his "My Pet Goat" and suddenly realizes hmmm... this idiotic method isn't working so well.
Then Bush went back to the Clinton plan.
Too late.
Of all the failed diplomacy conducted in the GW Bush (WPE) years, Korea stands out as a particularly stark failure. And in the Bush years, that's rather hard to do.
D.
***
Bigd: "Insurance companies cannot ask if people are here legally either so they will be covered regardless of what the bill says.>>
DAR
In Arkansas, Blue Cross Blue Shield will not accept an application for health insurance without a social security number.
You don't know what you are talking about.
You have no credibility.
Bigd: "[the private market] will shrink because if you lose your job or change employers you will be required to get the government plan.>>
DAR
A bold, and blatant lie. Even the UK, which IS the closest to a government run system (other than the VA and military medicine which is pure socialism), will let you have private insurance and private doctors. That you would make such a claim just shows that you have no credibility on this issue.
Bigd: "Obama is on record as saying he wants a single payer system>>
DAR
He said in his speech it would be too disruptive to the current [inefficient and leech filled] system. He said if we were starting from scratch it would be the way to go (so obviously true). So you are lying. He is not saying at this time "he wants a single payer system."
Eventually we will not be able to feed this private industry beast. American can't afford it any longer. This will be really obvious, really soon.
Bigd: (which is a government run system)>>
DAR
Single payer refers to government run INSURANCE. You can have government run insurance and a private medical system (as Canada and Taiwan have). Get informed.
Bigd: "...and that he wants to drive private insurance out of business. This is what he stated so there can be no denying it.>>
DAR
Good, then, you won't have any trouble at all providing the quote where he said "he wants to drive private insurance out of business." In fact, he has said the opposite. In June he said his plan will not drive them out of business.
LINK.
So, back up your claim. Let's see who the liar is. Are you going to do it or are you going to run?
D.
***
ADAM: "I can’t imagine why Americans voted your side out of office in two large masses the last two cycles,">>
DAR
You're exactly right Adam. This story tells the real fear of the non-crazy party of the party:
Republicans Fear "Crackpots" Becoming Face Of Party.
***
Bigd: "You have been given plenty of examples. [of Obama lying]">>
DAR
Which one do you think has the best chance of maybe coming close? Try it again. I'll roast it.
Bigd: "You refuse to admit they are lies.>>
DAR
This shouldn't be difficult. Let's review. To show a lie you need to show:
a) The claim is false
b) the person made the claim knew it was false.
That's a lie.
Let's see one of those.
When you show one of those, I will agree with you.
D.
***
Bigd: "He [Bush, in polls] was through the roof after 9/11.">>
DAR
You are absolutely right. It's more than a little sickening that a politician would gain politically because of an evil act he so utterly and disastrously failed to stop.
But there it is.
And then he went on to set new record lows.
D.
-------------------
"Mr. Bush's final approval rating [22%] is the lowest final rating for an outgoing president since Gallup began asking about presidential approval more than 70 years ago."
CBS
***
[Lying, healthcare and immigration]
DAR
Let me explain.
Republicans are going around lying, in the following manner (let me know if you would like specific examples):
rough paraphrase: "Have you heard, Obamacare's new health care plan is going to give health care to illegal immigrants!"
That's the distortion he [Obama] was trying to knock down.
Now. We haven't the foggiest idea how many there are, maybe 10-15 million of them. These are the fine folks that pluck our chickens and pick our strawberries (and incidentally, we need more of them, I know fruit farms that can't pick their fruit).
These people need to eat, they need to go to the bathroom, and once in a while, they need to go to a doctor. We can pretend this isn't true, but in fact, it is true.
I don't know why they are this way, perhaps it has something to do with them being HUMAN BEINGS.
Some day, some president may get around to dealing with this complex issue. Bush didn't. St. Reagan did, he gave them amnesty.
Thing is, it's not too bright to get into a bunch of immigration stuff in a health-care bill. The goal of the health care bill is to fix, apparently with a temporary band-aid, some of the huge problems.
It won't be enough. If we get single payer, it will probably be a republican that does it (just as Clinton did the welfare), and he won't be because he wants to but because he has to.
Roughly 40-50% or our healthcare is already socialized btw. But I digress.
This new bill may effect illegals, indirectly. It's a huge, unwieldy bill with lots of little details still in the works and it's almost inconceivable that some little bit in it, wouldn't have an effect, in some way, on such a huge population.
But the goal of the reform is not to cover illegals, as in, give them free or subsidized health care (even though they pay taxes, and SS, and we mooch off this because they will not be collecting SS).
That's a lie. That's the lie Obama referred to and according to every mainstream and objective factchecking site, Obama's claim is right.
If there was any doubt, as a bonus, the bill even *specifically* prohibits such spending, as has been shown to you above, over and over.
Again: "The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, and they could also buy into a new government-run insurance plan if Congress creates one. But unlike legal residents, they wouldn’t get federal subsidies to help them."
Now, you can blather on about enforcement, and perhaps that should be strengthened but that is a different issue and one that Obama did not address in his claim.
D.
---------------
ps. If you want to get rid of the illegals, fine the employers, fine the landlords (like me). Of if you like your chicken cheap and you like to eat strawberries, give them amnesty. That's what Jesus would do (just like Reagan).
But don't deny them simple access to health care and make the women and children suffer. That's not nice.
***
DAR
I know more about Christianity than you.
I think Christians are great (except for the loons).
Bigd: "Your advocacy for illegals getting care (at our expense)..."
DAR
When did I do this? Why do you constantly make things up?
Bigd: "you have a dream of producers paying for everyone else."
DAR
No, right now I produce and pay to cover Blake's care should he have an accident (blow a valve in his ticker after all that smoking), and it's not a "dream," it's a nightmare. I wish he would pay for his own risk instead of mooch.
Bigd: "There will be an armed insurrection"
DAR
Good. All the easier to round you clowns up and get you in those re-education camps and turn you into good citizens of the world.
D.
***
Bigd: "People are not turned away all the time. Over half the visits to ERs are non emergent and the people are seen. Doctors do not turn people away for fear of lawsuits.">>
DAR
Wrong.
From "The Healing of America", pg. 218:
"As a rule, you can't just go to the emergency room in America unless you have the cash or the insurance coverage to pay the bill. Hospitals routinely turn sick people away if they can't prove they have the means to pay. This is legal. "A hospital is not, as a general rule, required to provide non-emergency care to person unable to pay," notes the leading US Textbook on the law of health care." It is also not required to continue treatement in the face of nonpayment of bills." (11) In the 1980's, there were several well-publicized cases, sometime caught on videotape, of patients who were "dumped" onto the streets in their hospital robes because they couldn't pay. The resulting uproar led Congress to pass the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986... Under EMTALA, any hospital receiving Medicare funds has to admit and treat anybody who is (1) facing severe risk of death, or (2) in active labor, until the patient's medical condition is
"stabilized."... But most sick people aren't on the verge of death or in the final stages of chidbirth, so most of the time EMTALA doesn't help at all. The reality is that you can't "just go to the emergency room" for the physical exam or the blood test or the breast palpation that could diagnose a disease before it threatens your life. You can't just go to the ER to refill the prescriptions for the pills that would keep you alive. As NIkki White learned,..."
LINK
Bigd: "Buzz Patterson was there">>
DAR
That's nice. And what does Buzz say? Do share your little hearsay anecdote.
D.
***
BLK: "if they were to come to the emergency room, they would still be treated with federal dollars. Its what they’ve always done- what would change?">>
DAR
Oops, you just dropped your pants and revealed that you aren't complaining that Obama is changing the system to cover illegal immigrants. Rather, you're just pissed that he isn't using this healthcare bill to deal with an immigration reform issue and deny illegals in a way that they haven't been denied before.
A different issue obviously.
Now you can pull your pants back up.
D.
***
BLK: "You cherry- pick your examples to suit your argument-">>
DAR
I don't have to cherry pick. According to the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious science institute in the United States, Nikki White is just one of eighteen thousand deaths per year due to lack of health insurance.
That's six 9/11's, per year.
I think America can do better than let people like Nikki White die.
Do you think American can do better than this?
D.
***
[You don't understand the Bible]
DAR
Well it's too bad you don't live near by and can't come and have a Bible study with me and teach me what it means.
One of us would learn a lot.
D.
---------------------
"If there are objective (absolute) moral values given to us in the Bible then why is there no single important social/moral issue on which sincere Bible believers agree? People who find "moral absolutes" in the revelation of a deity have never agreed on what those absolutes are. Take any crucial moral issue of the day and you will find devout, God-fearing, Bible-believing Christians coming down on opposite sides:
* capital punishment
* abortion
* divorce
* physician-assisted suicide
* gay rights
* women's rights
* corporal punishment
* war (hawks vs. doves)
* birth control
* fetal tissue research
* cloning
* separation of church and state
* slavery (especially in the 19th century)
* and so on . . .
Former minister Dan Barker observed:
The apostle Paul alleged that the biblical deity is "not the author of confusion," yet never has a single book caused more confusion or divisiveness than the Bible. If the Bible gives us absolute moral guidance, then where is it? It seems no one really knows what these "objective values" are."
http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/moralvalues.shtml
***
Bigd: "My Pet Goat was read in 2001 not 2006"
DAR
Obviously. I was being metaphorical. I'll try to dumb it down even more.
Bigd: "I did not say Clinton provided the nukes, just the material to make them.">>
DAR
Same thing. Both false.
Bigd: "allowed Kim to build a nuke.">>
DAR
They didn't build a nuke until Bush ignored the problem, idiotically, for six years.
Then he went back to Clinton's method.
Do you wonder why? It's because Bush's method was a complete and utter failure.
D.
------------------
"Nothing can erase the ineffable sadness of an American presidency, like this one, in total intellectual collapse."
--John Bolton,
"The Tragic End of Bush's North Korea Policy," WSJ
***
Bigd: [earlier] "…and that he wants to drive private insurance out of business. This is what he stated so there can be no denying it.">>
DAR
Still waiting.
Bigd: "Here is Obama in his own words...">>
DAR
Your quote is from 2003.
And you can have a "universal health care plan" without single payer.
And you can also have private insurance plans, in addition to government single payer.
You don't know your bum from your elbow.
D.
***
Bigd: BC/BS in AK will not accept an application without an SSN as if #1) Illegals do not use phony>>
DAR
This is fraud. Arrest and deport them. You are confusing the law, with enforcement of the law. Murder is against the law, but people still do it. We are talking about the law, not the fact that people break laws.
Bigd: [you claim] #2) a SS number is proof of being here legally.>>
DAR
If you have a SS number you have the right to work and thus obviously the right to be here. SSN's are issued to "U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and temporary (working) residents."
Bigd: An SSN is not proof of citizenship or legal status.>>
DAR
I know a little about this considering I lived here for 21 years, with a SSN, without citizenship. Obviously having a SSN has nothing to do with being a "citizen."
If you have a SSN, you have been issued one because you have legal status to work and live in the US.
"...the SSN has become a de facto national identification number..."
D.
***
BLK: "[Obama] has NO positive change,">>
DAR
Abbreviated list of positive change in just his first month:
Announced strict new rules for lobbyists
Paycaps for WH staff
Hillary Clinton confirmed Secretary of State
Signed an Executive Order closing Gitmo and secret CIA prisons overseas
Named George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke Special Envoys to Middle East
Signed Lily Ledbetter Act,
Eric Holder confirmed;
Signed S-ChIP legislation;
Canceled 77 land leases around Arches National Park;
Signed the Stimulus Bill;
Announced his home foreclosure prevention plan;
Banned budget gimmicks, like emergency funding for Iraq;
Signed Executive Order for Office of Gulf Coast Recovery.
***
Bigd: Show me where George Bush made a statement that was false>>
DAR
Why would I do that? Why are you changing the subject and running from your burden of backing up YOUR claims?
Bigd: Since you cannot know if a person knew something was false you can not ever say they lied>>
DAR
Really? You believe that? Would you like a thousand counter examples?
If your wife calls and asks if you've fixed the sink yet, and you say yes, and she gets home and it hasn't been fixed, you lied and you both know you lied. Understand?
Bigd: "Obama said one thing one time and the opposite another time. That would be a lie.>>
DAR
What are you talking about? Make your case. You've got nothing.
Bigd: "I don’t have to show he knew it was false because he would have demonstrated that himself.">>
DAR
Right. Now all you need is to provide your example and support it with citation and evidence. You've never done that. Let's see what you've got.
You won't do it because you can't.
D.
---------------------
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=21119
***
Bigd: Darrel, prove that Bush failed to stop 9/11.>>
DAR
Bush was president and in charge of the nations defenses. 9/11 happened. Therefore, Bush failed to stop 9/11.
Bigd: explain why Clinton failed to stop the first bombing of the WTC.>>
DAR
I don't know why he failed to stop it, but he certainly did. Then he caught the bad guys, and put them away. Just like Bush did with Bin Laden. Oh, wait, that's not right....
Bigd: If Bush could have stopped the second one then Clinton could have stopped the first.>>
DAR
Non sequiter. Careful with those "if, then" statements.
Bigd: show me how he instructed the airport screeners to miss all the razor knives carried on by the hijackers.>>
DAR
Box cutters were allowed on flights at that time.
Bottomline, as I said before:
"The greatest security breech and attack on American soil happened under Bush's completely negligent and incompetent governance. Bush (who wouldn't even take the time to have a meeting with his counter-terrorism coordinator), and Cheney (who never even bothered to chair a single meeting of the anti-terrorism taskforce he was suppose to lead) COMPLETELY dropped the ball and failed to do their jobs."
D.
***
Bigd: You have called Bush a liar in the past.>>
DAR
Show this.
Bigd: Obama in debate with Hillary:
“I don’t think that the problem with the American people is that they are not being forced to get health care.”>>
DAR
Good attempt! I think. Let's unpack it and see if it's a lie.
At this time, Hillary had a tentative healthcare plan she was peddling for her campaign and it had requirements for people to buy insurance (as Romney's plan in Wisconsin does).
Obama's plan, at the time, did not. It had another method of getting everyone covered. So of course he would argue for his plan, and against her's. They were after all, debating the merits of each others plans.
Continue....
Bigd: But in his speech last week he said:
"And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek, especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, just can’t be achieved.
That’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.">>
DAR
So we see, over a year later, Obama has co-opted a feature of a plan by a fellow Democrat. OMG. Hillary must have smirked a little when she learned this.
Plans change. Policies change, adapt, improve, get worse, etc.,. Also, people learn knew things and change their minds (I know you don't, am speaking of normal people). That's what we have here.
Bigd: "now he believes they need to be forced so we can all do our part.">>
DAR
That's right. He changed his policy. That's not a lie, that's changing your policy. Do your favorite politicians ever do that?
That you would choose this as your example of a supposed lie just shows how weak and pathetic your position is.
But thanks for trying!
Bigd: now that he is there he will force you.>>
DAR
Right now 40-50% of our medical system is socialized. It was this way under your Bush (WPE). It's the only part of our system that is working effectively, fairly and efficiently. The private sector delivery system is a mess, unfair, wasteful, full of perverse incentives and an utter disaster. At some point, the whole pile of junk is going to come crashing down. These band-aids may keep the franken-monster creeping along for a little while longer but at some point, the private greed based system is going to go. America, cannot, afford it.
Oh, and we'll finally be the last country in the world to go on the metric system too. It's better.
D.
--------------------
Why does this country have so many <a href="viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6071&sid=5b3ccaa471 ... 38b">crazy nutbars</a> holding us back?
***
Bigd: "Clinton was not responsible for the first attack.">>
DAR
I didn't say he was "responsible." You said "he failed to stop it" and I agreed with you.
You need to learn what basic words mean. I think that is the real root of your problem.
Bigd: "Go... back where you belong.">>
DAR
I am an American citizen. My American mother will soon be elderly and I will be helping her. Her American father, my grandfather, was 100% disabled in WWII and died year before last, age 86. I have as much right to be here as you.
Bigd; "won’t they let you be a slum lord in Canada?">>
DAR
Canada has surprisingly few "slums." I don't know how they manage to do that considering the US is, as they say, "number one" and has a great many of them (my properties are quite nice btw).
If you had good arguments for your beliefs, I think you wouldn't find the need to substitute insults for evidence.
D.
***
Bigd: "Announced strict new rules for lobbyists -- Then broke the rules. He lied">>
DAR
Almost all rules, have waivers, exceptions. That there have been waivers, does not change the fact that Obama successfully strengthened lobbyist rules, as he promised. This is very much a positive thing, as many even on the far right have noted and I have referred to.
Bigd: "Paycaps for WH staff"
...They can’t do it. Another lie.>>
DAR
You don't know what you are talking about. Observe:
***
"Last week, the White House made public the salaries of all 487 of its employees. The data showed that Barack Obama followed through on one of his first official acts as president -- to freeze the salaries of his immediate staff making $100,000 or more. The data show that most of his senior employees earn about $172,200 annually, the same amount their counterparts earned in the final year of the Bush administration.
This isn't the first time the federal government has frozen pay in executive or leadership positions.
Congress held the Senior Executive Service pay cap in place from 1994 to 1997, as well as in 1999. That followed cutbacks in the SES by President Clinton."
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0709/070909pb.htm
That's all you've got it seems, and none of it backed up.
And let's not forget, the claim I was responding to was this little whopper from Blake:
"[Obama] has NO positive change."
And I only looked at the first 30 days.
Maybe some day you guys will learn to not make statements that are so easy to knock down. Or not.
D.
***
Bigd: There was a huge protest in DC with an estimated 1.3 to 2 million people descending on the Capitol>>
DAR
This is an astonishing howler. A profoundly, objectively false statement.
See a picture of what a group of a million people looks like at this location. Then look at the picture of this little group of 30-60 thousand.
How I missed the 2 million man teabagging flash mob today.
Let's be charitable and say it was 45k.
And let's round your claim off to 1.6 million.
Divide 1.6m by 45k and we see that you are off by 35x.
Close!
And make sure and see
all the stoopid peepul who can't spell words on their signs right.
Wish I could have been there.
D.
-----------------
"Shuster: "Freedomworks says their DC demonstration attracted 30,000 people. Park police official says that is being 'generous.'"
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909120013
LOL!
***
Bigd: "By definition single payer means one entity pays.">>
DAR
It's a little more complicated than that. For instance, single payer can be used to apply to only certain aspects of coverage, such as basic care, and this can work in conjunction with supplementary private insurance for other categories of care.
Bigd: Obama wants single payer>>
DAR
If we were starting from scratch. Maybe once it collapses we will be starting from scratch. Right now, he does not say he wants single payer. He says it would be too disruptive. And, he's probably right. Too many crazy people running around making stuff up. It'll have to get worse, and it will.
Bigd: and he said it would put employer provided health insurance out of business.">>
DAR
No, he didn't.
Germany has private insurance (and employer provided insurance).
UK, has private insurance as an option.
Canada has private insurance for non-standard care.
etc.
Bigd: "Who care when the quote is from, he said it. Are you saying that it makes no difference?"
DAR
In 2003 he may have liked chocolate ice cream the best. Now he may like mint chocolate chip the best. By quoting his 2003 comment and implying it is his position today (when it is not), you are being dishonest. Don't do that.
Single payer was not even on the table this go around. Unfortunately. It will be again because inevitably the US will not be able to afford feeding the greed beast as we currently do. Costs will have to be controlled as they are so successfully in all of our peer countries.
D.
***
Bigd: "Just because a person provides an SSN it does not mean that it is a legal number.>>
DAR
Sometimes people break the law. Example: Obama is against murder. You don't say: "Oh, well, sometimes people commit murder even though it's against the law, so why does he bother to be against it?"
That's what you are doing. Think about it.
Bigd: "...illegals can get care.>>
DAR
It's true, people break the law. BC/BS checks for legal status by requiring a SSN. What would you have them do?
Bigd: it is illegal to be here in the first place.>>
DAR
Then why didn't your Bush do something about it? And abortion too?
You guys are so played by your republican party.
D.
***
BLK: Why did you become a citizen of a country you find so much to fault?>>
DAR
So I could file a petition for status someone else. Their current one had been bogged down for years.
I work to improve America. Sad to say, the history of those like you, and Bigd, has been to destroy America. An astonishing claim you won't take seriously I know, but it's true.
You can read about what I am talking about:
here.
Sad but true.
BLK: Are you a chronic complainer?>>
DAR
Not at all. But boy you are! I am fairly happy with my health care arrangement. It's pricey and going to get worse but I can afford it. Millions of others cannot.
BLK: Or did you want the benefits of being a true citizen?>>
DAR
Not really. That's why I waited for 21 years. The only change was the ability to vote, travel under a US passport, and file a petition for status for someone else.
D.
***
BLK: "people are not turned away from ERs-">>
DAR
Health practitioners are no doubt generous and caring. They do what they can and the demand is great. It's not their fault that the system is so screwed up. But as per the law as I cited last night, unless you are dying or giving birth, if you don't have insurance or can't pay, they don't have to do anything but stabilize you and send you on your way.
BLK: And the government will reimburse those visits.>>
DAR
A stat I read last night said less than half of the cost of unpaid for ER care is reimbursed by the government.
And this:
"According to a May 2003 American Medical Association (AMA) study, emergency physicians annually provide, on average, $138,300 of uncompensated care under the aegis of EMTALA."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_room --wiki
D.
**
Bigd: "Why do you lie about what you said?">>
DAR
I didn't. Observe the difference between:
"Your advocacy for illegals getting care (at our expense)…”
And my advocacy for your comment:
“Illegals will get care”
Do you see the difference? (hint: it's in the parenthesis).
Nice try though! I almost thought you had me for a minute.
D.
***
Bigd: Blake pays his own way.>>
DAR
He doesn't pay for his risk. If he gets cancer, or MS, or his ticker blows a valve and he racks up $200k or any number in excess of his net worth. We'll (probably) cover his bottom. He's only one serious accident, illness or hospital bill away from converting to a hardcore liberal! And they'll probably take him, liberals are so easy going and forgiving.
Bigd: Illegals are ILLEGAL.>>
DAR
Spoken with true tautological brilliance!
Bigd: Reagan signed amnesty on the promise that the border issue would be fixed.>>
DAR
Are you suggesting that Reagan could really have been that dumb?
D.
----------------
"To listen even very briefly to Ronald Reagan is to realize that here is a man upon whose synapses the termites have dined long and hard." --Christopher Hitchens
***
Bigd; "...there is a provision that if one family member is eligible for the affordability credit then all are.>>
DAR
Show this.
Bigd: "...courts have erroneously awarded citizenship to anyone born here">>
DAR
What? It's an error to think that people born here are citizens!?
You really can't read the Constitution can you?
The "courts"? You mean the supreme court. Who do you think should interpret the Constitution?
D.
***
BLK: "Democrats holding the doors of the universities closed to Blacks, and setting dogs">>
DAR
Those were Dixiecrat conservatives. Your people! The ones Nixon took back with his "southern strategy." The ones in your little rally that are still pissed that liberals made them stop doing those things.
Next on the check list, full equality for gays.
D.
--------------
Quick history lesson:
"Liberal policies made America the freest, wealthiest, most successful and most powerful nation in human history. Conservatism in power always threatens to undo that national progress, and is almost always frustrated by the innate decency and democratic instincts of the American people...
If your workplace is safe; if your children go to school rather than being forced into labor; if you are paid a living wage, including overtime; if you enjoy a 40-hour week and you are allowed to join a union to protect your rights -- you can thank liberals. If your food is not poisoned and your water is drinkable -- you can thank liberals. If your parents are eligible for Medicare and Social Security, so they can grow old in dignity without bankrupting your family -- you can thank liberals. If our rivers are getting cleaner and our air isn't black with pollution; if our wilderness is protected and our countryside is still green -- you can thank liberals. If people of all races can share the same public facilities; if everyone has the right to vote; if couples fall in love and marry regardless of race; if we have finally begun to transcend a segregated society -- you can thank liberals. Progressive innovations like those and so many others were achieved
by long, difficult struggles against entrenched power. What defined conservatism, and conservatives, was their opposition to every one of those advances.
The country we know and love today was built by those victories for liberalism -- with the support of the American people."
-- Joe Conason
***
BLK: "really hypocritical- an atheist presuming to know what Jesus would want-">>
DAR
Actually, everyone is on the exact same footing when it comes to figuring out what Jesus may want. All we have, all of us, are stories in a book written by people who never met him. It's not a very good foundation but it's all there is with regard to anything about Jesus.
BLK: "everyone has access to basic healthcare- they just have to pay for it- what is wrong with that?">>
DAR
I think that's great. In each of the 36 countries that do a better and cheaper and fairer job of getting healthcare to "everyone," it is paid for, by "everyone."
So I think we agree. Kinda.
D.
------------------
ps. There is one thing we do know Jesus wanted and he stated it clearly. Note:
“Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.” --Luke 6:30
So I ask you, Mr. Blake, Mr. self professed Christian. Give me all of your money. All of it. I am a man, and I asketh of thee. Now are you going to obey the words of Jesus or are you going to make excuses? We'll see.
Oh - I need someone to clean my house too. So if you have any daughters, I'd be glad to buy them from you with your money.
Exodus 21:7
Deut 15:12
Read your Bible.
***
I asked you if you knew the difference between:
a) “Your advocacy for illegals getting care (at our expense)…”
And my advocacy for your comment:
b) “Illegals will get care”
There is a difference.
You claimed "a", and when I asked "when did I say that" you provided "b."
So your example evaporates.
With regard to insults, as usual, I will be far more polite than you. I didn't call you scum today.
Bigd: "...take her to Canada. Nothing but the best for momma."
DAR
She's a very religious person that loves Glen Beck (until recently, the other day she said she thinks he may be crazy).
She lived in Canada for 22 years and the US about 43. She may be politically far right but she's not so dense as to not know that Canada's medical system is better. She'd take it in a heart beat.
D.
**
I followed the first link at your own link and found:
***
ABC News Was Misquoted on Crowd Size
ABC News Reported D.C. Rally Size in Tens of Thousands, Not 1M to 1.5M as Activist Said.
LINK.
***
[Scientists thought the earth was cooling in the 1970's]
DAR
As I informed you July 2:
***
The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.
The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.
But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.
The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.
"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate ... htm?csp=34
DAR
And that was 35+ years ago. We've learned quite a bit since then. So please update your (dis)information.
D.
-------------------
See also also this FAQ, for more debunk.
***
[Al Gore peace prize bashing]
DAR
Flashback, June 8th, on this forum:
***
BIGD: "Al Gore got a peace prize for something that had nothing to do with peace.">>
DAR
Tell that to the Pentagon:
"Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us"
Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... heobserver
***
Al Gore shared the peace prize because hundreds of millions of people being displaced around the world has *profound* consequences for "peace."
D.
-----------------
Or as the Nobel Prize page <a href="http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peac ... /">says</a>:
"for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"
***
Speaking of Clinton, and "Bush's failures," this just in:
---
Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy
Excerpt:
"On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.
...today's report shows that Bush flunked on every relevant dimension..."
LINK.
But it's all Clinton's fault of course.
***
Darrel says:
Monday Sep 14th, 2009 at 21:47
BLK: “they gave one to Carter, for God’s sake”>>
***
“The Nobel Peace Prize 2002
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2002 to Jimmy Carter, for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.
During his presidency (1977-1981), Carter’s mediation was a vital contribution to the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, in itself a great enough achievement to qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize. At a time when the cold war between East and West was still predominant, he placed renewed emphasis on the place of human rights in international politics.
Through his Carter Center, which celebrates its 20th anniversary in 2002, Carter has since his presidency undertaken very extensive and persevering conflict resolution on several continents. He has shown outstanding commitment to human rights, and has served as an observer at countless elections all over the world. He has worked hard on many fronts to fight tropical diseases and to bring about growth and progress in developing countries. Carter has thus been active in several of the problem areas that have figured prominently in the over one hundred years of Peace Prize history.
In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international co-operation based on international law, respect for human rights, and economic development.”
Oslo, 11 October 2002
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peac ... press.html
***
BLK: "John Coleman, one of the founders of the Weather Channel, has long said...">>
DAR
John Coleman earned a degree in Journalism in 1957 and he used that to work up to being a "weather anchor" on TV. He has no training in the field of climatology and what he says about the issue of climatology should be considered in this context.
If you would like to defend any of his claims, please do (few of them are even scientific, mostly emotion, conspiracy and innuendo). It's all very bottom of the barrel.
D.
----------------
"Coleman's only obvious connection to weather and climate is as a TV weather reporter and simply being the “founder of the Weather Channel” and when it comes to climate science being a reporter of weather really means nothing."
***
Nice unpacking of the whole number thing here:
***
Tea for Two… Million?
FreedomWorks, Twitter, and the evolution of an error
Columbia Journalism Review.
D.
-------------
"Even Glenn Beck, who fashioned himself, from his perch in New York City, the day’s master of ceremonies via his 9/12 Project, grudgingly accepted those numbers: “The official estimate is 60,000 people,” he said during his live coverage of the protest. “I’ve lived in Washington. It looks more than 60,000. But we’ll go with the official numbers today.”
***
BLK: "He [Obama] said he would be transparent,>>
DAR
He said he would be see through? Even superman can't do that.
Citation please. If you would like examples of how he has made government more transparent, just let me know.
BLK: "...he said the bills wold be on his website for 5 days,...>>
DAR
Yes he did. Here is the official excuse for dropping that ball.
"During the campaign, the president committed to introducing more sunlight into the lawmaking process by posting nonemergency legislation online for five days before signing it. The president remains committed to bringing more transparency to government, and in this spirit the White House has posted legislation expected to come to the president's desk online for comment. We will be implementing this policy in full soon; currently we are working through implementation procedures and some initial issues with the congressional calendar. In the meantime, we will continue to post legislation on our Web site for comment as it moves through congress over the next few weeks."
DAR
This would be broken commitment, not a lie. If you have trouble grasping that, think of all of the instances in which Bush said he would do something, and didn't (I can provide a long list if you like). You wouldn't consider those lies, and neither would I.
This is because to show a lie you would need to show that they *knew* the statement/promise/commitment was false when they made it.
D.
***
BLK: that fallacious argument>>
DAR
I am sorry that you don't know what a fallacious argument is. What is the name of this supposed "fallacy" I used? You can't provide this because my claim is a rather mundane statement of fact.
Bush failed to stop the 9/11 attacks.
This is not even a controversial statement of fact. Likewise, Clinton failed to stop the first attack on the twin towers. Please learn to understand basic English.
BLK: Clinton was President- during his term, babies were born out of wedlock->>
DAR
Absolutely correct. This usually falls under the category of "teen pregnancy" and it is something all presidents work toward diminishing. The US performs very poorly in this category compared to peer countries. Sorry to "bash the US" but I am interested in truth, not flag waving based on feel good BS.
This problem is intricately connected with abortion so it should be important to you that the US doesn't do better.
Oh, and note: "According to 2006 data from the Guttmacher Institute, those red states accounted for eight of the 10 states with the highest teenage birthrates."
NYT's
The problem is aggravated by the fact that Abstinence Only Education does not work and in fact causes more teen pregnancy. Ask Sarah Palin about that.
You will accuse me of bragging but... I did an hour long TV show on this topic for our local cable access channel and it won best "documentary" category of the year.
Much of the information covered can be read here if you are interested.
BLK: Clinton failed to stop unwed births and teen pregnancy.>>
DAR
Actually, his record on this was very good. The US hit a 60 year low under his tenure. Consider:
"I am very encouraged by new data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing that teen birth rates in the United States have reached their lowest level since record keeping began 60 years ago. These preliminary data for 1999 show that birth rates among 15 to 19 year-olds dropped 3 percent from the previous year and 20 percent from the most recent peak in 1991."
LINK
D.
***
[Why so many US nuts?]
DAR
I had a customer ask me this the other day, and it will be the topic of our next meeting.
I think the answer to the question of why the US is so dysfunctional in these important social categories, is largely attributable to the following data... as carefully outlined in this short article by my friend, Art.
D.
***
BECK: "Imagine if a crowd like THIS showed up to protest Bush. What do you think David Axelrod would have said then?"
DAR
That's easy. He would have said they were right. And with good reason.
Far bigger crowds showed up, here and around the world, to protest Bush.
D.
-----------------
"Europe saw the biggest mobilization of protesters, including a rally of 3 million people in Rome, which is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally.[2]
According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war."[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_a ... e_Iraq_War --wiki
***
Bigd: “The protest no doubt consisted mostly of conservatives but there were many liberals and moderates as well.”>>
DAR
Well, by Bigdog math, close. There was one! And look how they treated him. Where would anyone possibly get the idea that this was an anti-Obama event, by conservatives, and not open to dissent from that position?
See the video. I see at least six security guards which grew to over twenty. They did what they could.
The Liberal.
LINK
D.
***
Clinton had "Osama offered to him" debunked:
http://www.blogd.com/archives/000526.html
***
Bigd: "Illegals will get care">>
DAR
I hope you are right. It's what Jesus would want.
D.
-------------
"The Epistle of James tells us, “If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill’ and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that?” If a brother or sister lacks health care, and one of you says, ‘Go in peace; get well and take your medications,’ and yet you give them no way to access their care or their prescriptions, what is the good of that?
Christians care about our neighbors. Jesus taught us to love our neighbors as ourselves. Christians are pro-life, and therefore we are pro-heath care. Christians support things that are good for children and families. Christian values have helped shape our society. Some Christians even claim that this is a Christian nation. What better way to prove ours is a nation that lives out Christian values than to insure that everyone has access to basic health care. Everyone.
What would Jesus do? Who would Jesus leave out? Who would Jesus refuse to heal?"
--Lowell Grisham is an Episcopal priest from Fayetteville. And he's not a cold-hearted hypocrite.
***
DAR
Your same old lies about Clinton providing nukes [to Korea], and of course you don't even bother to try to back it up.
Reality: Bush broke with Clinton's method of talking to the loon, and broke agreements, and refused to talk until 2006 (when they popped off their nuke). This is when Bush sets aside his "My Pet Goat" and suddenly realizes hmmm... this idiotic method isn't working so well.
Then Bush went back to the Clinton plan.
Too late.
Of all the failed diplomacy conducted in the GW Bush (WPE) years, Korea stands out as a particularly stark failure. And in the Bush years, that's rather hard to do.
D.
***
Bigd: "Insurance companies cannot ask if people are here legally either so they will be covered regardless of what the bill says.>>
DAR
In Arkansas, Blue Cross Blue Shield will not accept an application for health insurance without a social security number.
You don't know what you are talking about.
You have no credibility.
Bigd: "[the private market] will shrink because if you lose your job or change employers you will be required to get the government plan.>>
DAR
A bold, and blatant lie. Even the UK, which IS the closest to a government run system (other than the VA and military medicine which is pure socialism), will let you have private insurance and private doctors. That you would make such a claim just shows that you have no credibility on this issue.
Bigd: "Obama is on record as saying he wants a single payer system>>
DAR
He said in his speech it would be too disruptive to the current [inefficient and leech filled] system. He said if we were starting from scratch it would be the way to go (so obviously true). So you are lying. He is not saying at this time "he wants a single payer system."
Eventually we will not be able to feed this private industry beast. American can't afford it any longer. This will be really obvious, really soon.
Bigd: (which is a government run system)>>
DAR
Single payer refers to government run INSURANCE. You can have government run insurance and a private medical system (as Canada and Taiwan have). Get informed.
Bigd: "...and that he wants to drive private insurance out of business. This is what he stated so there can be no denying it.>>
DAR
Good, then, you won't have any trouble at all providing the quote where he said "he wants to drive private insurance out of business." In fact, he has said the opposite. In June he said his plan will not drive them out of business.
LINK.
So, back up your claim. Let's see who the liar is. Are you going to do it or are you going to run?
D.
***
ADAM: "I can’t imagine why Americans voted your side out of office in two large masses the last two cycles,">>
DAR
You're exactly right Adam. This story tells the real fear of the non-crazy party of the party:
Republicans Fear "Crackpots" Becoming Face Of Party.
***
Bigd: "You have been given plenty of examples. [of Obama lying]">>
DAR
Which one do you think has the best chance of maybe coming close? Try it again. I'll roast it.
Bigd: "You refuse to admit they are lies.>>
DAR
This shouldn't be difficult. Let's review. To show a lie you need to show:
a) The claim is false
b) the person made the claim knew it was false.
That's a lie.
Let's see one of those.
When you show one of those, I will agree with you.
D.
***
Bigd: "He [Bush, in polls] was through the roof after 9/11.">>
DAR
You are absolutely right. It's more than a little sickening that a politician would gain politically because of an evil act he so utterly and disastrously failed to stop.
But there it is.
And then he went on to set new record lows.
D.
-------------------
"Mr. Bush's final approval rating [22%] is the lowest final rating for an outgoing president since Gallup began asking about presidential approval more than 70 years ago."
CBS
***
[Lying, healthcare and immigration]
DAR
Let me explain.
Republicans are going around lying, in the following manner (let me know if you would like specific examples):
rough paraphrase: "Have you heard, Obamacare's new health care plan is going to give health care to illegal immigrants!"
That's the distortion he [Obama] was trying to knock down.
Now. We haven't the foggiest idea how many there are, maybe 10-15 million of them. These are the fine folks that pluck our chickens and pick our strawberries (and incidentally, we need more of them, I know fruit farms that can't pick their fruit).
These people need to eat, they need to go to the bathroom, and once in a while, they need to go to a doctor. We can pretend this isn't true, but in fact, it is true.
I don't know why they are this way, perhaps it has something to do with them being HUMAN BEINGS.
Some day, some president may get around to dealing with this complex issue. Bush didn't. St. Reagan did, he gave them amnesty.
Thing is, it's not too bright to get into a bunch of immigration stuff in a health-care bill. The goal of the health care bill is to fix, apparently with a temporary band-aid, some of the huge problems.
It won't be enough. If we get single payer, it will probably be a republican that does it (just as Clinton did the welfare), and he won't be because he wants to but because he has to.
Roughly 40-50% or our healthcare is already socialized btw. But I digress.
This new bill may effect illegals, indirectly. It's a huge, unwieldy bill with lots of little details still in the works and it's almost inconceivable that some little bit in it, wouldn't have an effect, in some way, on such a huge population.
But the goal of the reform is not to cover illegals, as in, give them free or subsidized health care (even though they pay taxes, and SS, and we mooch off this because they will not be collecting SS).
That's a lie. That's the lie Obama referred to and according to every mainstream and objective factchecking site, Obama's claim is right.
If there was any doubt, as a bonus, the bill even *specifically* prohibits such spending, as has been shown to you above, over and over.
Again: "The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, and they could also buy into a new government-run insurance plan if Congress creates one. But unlike legal residents, they wouldn’t get federal subsidies to help them."
Now, you can blather on about enforcement, and perhaps that should be strengthened but that is a different issue and one that Obama did not address in his claim.
D.
---------------
ps. If you want to get rid of the illegals, fine the employers, fine the landlords (like me). Of if you like your chicken cheap and you like to eat strawberries, give them amnesty. That's what Jesus would do (just like Reagan).
But don't deny them simple access to health care and make the women and children suffer. That's not nice.
***
DAR
I know more about Christianity than you.
I think Christians are great (except for the loons).
Bigd: "Your advocacy for illegals getting care (at our expense)..."
DAR
When did I do this? Why do you constantly make things up?
Bigd: "you have a dream of producers paying for everyone else."
DAR
No, right now I produce and pay to cover Blake's care should he have an accident (blow a valve in his ticker after all that smoking), and it's not a "dream," it's a nightmare. I wish he would pay for his own risk instead of mooch.
Bigd: "There will be an armed insurrection"
DAR
Good. All the easier to round you clowns up and get you in those re-education camps and turn you into good citizens of the world.
D.
***
Bigd: "People are not turned away all the time. Over half the visits to ERs are non emergent and the people are seen. Doctors do not turn people away for fear of lawsuits.">>
DAR
Wrong.
From "The Healing of America", pg. 218:
"As a rule, you can't just go to the emergency room in America unless you have the cash or the insurance coverage to pay the bill. Hospitals routinely turn sick people away if they can't prove they have the means to pay. This is legal. "A hospital is not, as a general rule, required to provide non-emergency care to person unable to pay," notes the leading US Textbook on the law of health care." It is also not required to continue treatement in the face of nonpayment of bills." (11) In the 1980's, there were several well-publicized cases, sometime caught on videotape, of patients who were "dumped" onto the streets in their hospital robes because they couldn't pay. The resulting uproar led Congress to pass the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986... Under EMTALA, any hospital receiving Medicare funds has to admit and treat anybody who is (1) facing severe risk of death, or (2) in active labor, until the patient's medical condition is
"stabilized."... But most sick people aren't on the verge of death or in the final stages of chidbirth, so most of the time EMTALA doesn't help at all. The reality is that you can't "just go to the emergency room" for the physical exam or the blood test or the breast palpation that could diagnose a disease before it threatens your life. You can't just go to the ER to refill the prescriptions for the pills that would keep you alive. As NIkki White learned,..."
LINK
Bigd: "Buzz Patterson was there">>
DAR
That's nice. And what does Buzz say? Do share your little hearsay anecdote.
D.
***
BLK: "if they were to come to the emergency room, they would still be treated with federal dollars. Its what they’ve always done- what would change?">>
DAR
Oops, you just dropped your pants and revealed that you aren't complaining that Obama is changing the system to cover illegal immigrants. Rather, you're just pissed that he isn't using this healthcare bill to deal with an immigration reform issue and deny illegals in a way that they haven't been denied before.
A different issue obviously.
Now you can pull your pants back up.
D.
***
BLK: "You cherry- pick your examples to suit your argument-">>
DAR
I don't have to cherry pick. According to the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious science institute in the United States, Nikki White is just one of eighteen thousand deaths per year due to lack of health insurance.
That's six 9/11's, per year.
I think America can do better than let people like Nikki White die.
Do you think American can do better than this?
D.
***
[You don't understand the Bible]
DAR
Well it's too bad you don't live near by and can't come and have a Bible study with me and teach me what it means.
One of us would learn a lot.
D.
---------------------
"If there are objective (absolute) moral values given to us in the Bible then why is there no single important social/moral issue on which sincere Bible believers agree? People who find "moral absolutes" in the revelation of a deity have never agreed on what those absolutes are. Take any crucial moral issue of the day and you will find devout, God-fearing, Bible-believing Christians coming down on opposite sides:
* capital punishment
* abortion
* divorce
* physician-assisted suicide
* gay rights
* women's rights
* corporal punishment
* war (hawks vs. doves)
* birth control
* fetal tissue research
* cloning
* separation of church and state
* slavery (especially in the 19th century)
* and so on . . .
Former minister Dan Barker observed:
The apostle Paul alleged that the biblical deity is "not the author of confusion," yet never has a single book caused more confusion or divisiveness than the Bible. If the Bible gives us absolute moral guidance, then where is it? It seems no one really knows what these "objective values" are."
http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/moralvalues.shtml
***
Bigd: "My Pet Goat was read in 2001 not 2006"
DAR
Obviously. I was being metaphorical. I'll try to dumb it down even more.
Bigd: "I did not say Clinton provided the nukes, just the material to make them.">>
DAR
Same thing. Both false.
Bigd: "allowed Kim to build a nuke.">>
DAR
They didn't build a nuke until Bush ignored the problem, idiotically, for six years.
Then he went back to Clinton's method.
Do you wonder why? It's because Bush's method was a complete and utter failure.
D.
------------------
"Nothing can erase the ineffable sadness of an American presidency, like this one, in total intellectual collapse."
--John Bolton,
"The Tragic End of Bush's North Korea Policy," WSJ
***
Bigd: [earlier] "…and that he wants to drive private insurance out of business. This is what he stated so there can be no denying it.">>
DAR
Still waiting.
Bigd: "Here is Obama in his own words...">>
DAR
Your quote is from 2003.
And you can have a "universal health care plan" without single payer.
And you can also have private insurance plans, in addition to government single payer.
You don't know your bum from your elbow.
D.
***
Bigd: BC/BS in AK will not accept an application without an SSN as if #1) Illegals do not use phony>>
DAR
This is fraud. Arrest and deport them. You are confusing the law, with enforcement of the law. Murder is against the law, but people still do it. We are talking about the law, not the fact that people break laws.
Bigd: [you claim] #2) a SS number is proof of being here legally.>>
DAR
If you have a SS number you have the right to work and thus obviously the right to be here. SSN's are issued to "U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and temporary (working) residents."
Bigd: An SSN is not proof of citizenship or legal status.>>
DAR
I know a little about this considering I lived here for 21 years, with a SSN, without citizenship. Obviously having a SSN has nothing to do with being a "citizen."
If you have a SSN, you have been issued one because you have legal status to work and live in the US.
"...the SSN has become a de facto national identification number..."
D.
***
BLK: "[Obama] has NO positive change,">>
DAR
Abbreviated list of positive change in just his first month:
Announced strict new rules for lobbyists
Paycaps for WH staff
Hillary Clinton confirmed Secretary of State
Signed an Executive Order closing Gitmo and secret CIA prisons overseas
Named George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke Special Envoys to Middle East
Signed Lily Ledbetter Act,
Eric Holder confirmed;
Signed S-ChIP legislation;
Canceled 77 land leases around Arches National Park;
Signed the Stimulus Bill;
Announced his home foreclosure prevention plan;
Banned budget gimmicks, like emergency funding for Iraq;
Signed Executive Order for Office of Gulf Coast Recovery.
***
Bigd: Show me where George Bush made a statement that was false>>
DAR
Why would I do that? Why are you changing the subject and running from your burden of backing up YOUR claims?
Bigd: Since you cannot know if a person knew something was false you can not ever say they lied>>
DAR
Really? You believe that? Would you like a thousand counter examples?
If your wife calls and asks if you've fixed the sink yet, and you say yes, and she gets home and it hasn't been fixed, you lied and you both know you lied. Understand?
Bigd: "Obama said one thing one time and the opposite another time. That would be a lie.>>
DAR
What are you talking about? Make your case. You've got nothing.
Bigd: "I don’t have to show he knew it was false because he would have demonstrated that himself.">>
DAR
Right. Now all you need is to provide your example and support it with citation and evidence. You've never done that. Let's see what you've got.
You won't do it because you can't.
D.
---------------------
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=21119
***
Bigd: Darrel, prove that Bush failed to stop 9/11.>>
DAR
Bush was president and in charge of the nations defenses. 9/11 happened. Therefore, Bush failed to stop 9/11.
Bigd: explain why Clinton failed to stop the first bombing of the WTC.>>
DAR
I don't know why he failed to stop it, but he certainly did. Then he caught the bad guys, and put them away. Just like Bush did with Bin Laden. Oh, wait, that's not right....
Bigd: If Bush could have stopped the second one then Clinton could have stopped the first.>>
DAR
Non sequiter. Careful with those "if, then" statements.
Bigd: show me how he instructed the airport screeners to miss all the razor knives carried on by the hijackers.>>
DAR
Box cutters were allowed on flights at that time.
Bottomline, as I said before:
"The greatest security breech and attack on American soil happened under Bush's completely negligent and incompetent governance. Bush (who wouldn't even take the time to have a meeting with his counter-terrorism coordinator), and Cheney (who never even bothered to chair a single meeting of the anti-terrorism taskforce he was suppose to lead) COMPLETELY dropped the ball and failed to do their jobs."
D.
***
Bigd: You have called Bush a liar in the past.>>
DAR
Show this.
Bigd: Obama in debate with Hillary:
“I don’t think that the problem with the American people is that they are not being forced to get health care.”>>
DAR
Good attempt! I think. Let's unpack it and see if it's a lie.
At this time, Hillary had a tentative healthcare plan she was peddling for her campaign and it had requirements for people to buy insurance (as Romney's plan in Wisconsin does).
Obama's plan, at the time, did not. It had another method of getting everyone covered. So of course he would argue for his plan, and against her's. They were after all, debating the merits of each others plans.
Continue....
Bigd: But in his speech last week he said:
"And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek, especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, just can’t be achieved.
That’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.">>
DAR
So we see, over a year later, Obama has co-opted a feature of a plan by a fellow Democrat. OMG. Hillary must have smirked a little when she learned this.
Plans change. Policies change, adapt, improve, get worse, etc.,. Also, people learn knew things and change their minds (I know you don't, am speaking of normal people). That's what we have here.
Bigd: "now he believes they need to be forced so we can all do our part.">>
DAR
That's right. He changed his policy. That's not a lie, that's changing your policy. Do your favorite politicians ever do that?
That you would choose this as your example of a supposed lie just shows how weak and pathetic your position is.
But thanks for trying!
Bigd: now that he is there he will force you.>>
DAR
Right now 40-50% of our medical system is socialized. It was this way under your Bush (WPE). It's the only part of our system that is working effectively, fairly and efficiently. The private sector delivery system is a mess, unfair, wasteful, full of perverse incentives and an utter disaster. At some point, the whole pile of junk is going to come crashing down. These band-aids may keep the franken-monster creeping along for a little while longer but at some point, the private greed based system is going to go. America, cannot, afford it.
Oh, and we'll finally be the last country in the world to go on the metric system too. It's better.
D.
--------------------
Why does this country have so many <a href="viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6071&sid=5b3ccaa471 ... 38b">crazy nutbars</a> holding us back?
***
Bigd: "Clinton was not responsible for the first attack.">>
DAR
I didn't say he was "responsible." You said "he failed to stop it" and I agreed with you.
You need to learn what basic words mean. I think that is the real root of your problem.
Bigd: "Go... back where you belong.">>
DAR
I am an American citizen. My American mother will soon be elderly and I will be helping her. Her American father, my grandfather, was 100% disabled in WWII and died year before last, age 86. I have as much right to be here as you.
Bigd; "won’t they let you be a slum lord in Canada?">>
DAR
Canada has surprisingly few "slums." I don't know how they manage to do that considering the US is, as they say, "number one" and has a great many of them (my properties are quite nice btw).
If you had good arguments for your beliefs, I think you wouldn't find the need to substitute insults for evidence.
D.
***
Bigd: "Announced strict new rules for lobbyists -- Then broke the rules. He lied">>
DAR
Almost all rules, have waivers, exceptions. That there have been waivers, does not change the fact that Obama successfully strengthened lobbyist rules, as he promised. This is very much a positive thing, as many even on the far right have noted and I have referred to.
Bigd: "Paycaps for WH staff"
...They can’t do it. Another lie.>>
DAR
You don't know what you are talking about. Observe:
***
"Last week, the White House made public the salaries of all 487 of its employees. The data showed that Barack Obama followed through on one of his first official acts as president -- to freeze the salaries of his immediate staff making $100,000 or more. The data show that most of his senior employees earn about $172,200 annually, the same amount their counterparts earned in the final year of the Bush administration.
This isn't the first time the federal government has frozen pay in executive or leadership positions.
Congress held the Senior Executive Service pay cap in place from 1994 to 1997, as well as in 1999. That followed cutbacks in the SES by President Clinton."
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0709/070909pb.htm
That's all you've got it seems, and none of it backed up.
And let's not forget, the claim I was responding to was this little whopper from Blake:
"[Obama] has NO positive change."
And I only looked at the first 30 days.
Maybe some day you guys will learn to not make statements that are so easy to knock down. Or not.
D.
***
Bigd: There was a huge protest in DC with an estimated 1.3 to 2 million people descending on the Capitol>>
DAR
This is an astonishing howler. A profoundly, objectively false statement.
See a picture of what a group of a million people looks like at this location. Then look at the picture of this little group of 30-60 thousand.
How I missed the 2 million man teabagging flash mob today.
Let's be charitable and say it was 45k.
And let's round your claim off to 1.6 million.
Divide 1.6m by 45k and we see that you are off by 35x.
Close!
And make sure and see
all the stoopid peepul who can't spell words on their signs right.
Wish I could have been there.
D.
-----------------
"Shuster: "Freedomworks says their DC demonstration attracted 30,000 people. Park police official says that is being 'generous.'"
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909120013
LOL!
***
Bigd: "By definition single payer means one entity pays.">>
DAR
It's a little more complicated than that. For instance, single payer can be used to apply to only certain aspects of coverage, such as basic care, and this can work in conjunction with supplementary private insurance for other categories of care.
Bigd: Obama wants single payer>>
DAR
If we were starting from scratch. Maybe once it collapses we will be starting from scratch. Right now, he does not say he wants single payer. He says it would be too disruptive. And, he's probably right. Too many crazy people running around making stuff up. It'll have to get worse, and it will.
Bigd: and he said it would put employer provided health insurance out of business.">>
DAR
No, he didn't.
Germany has private insurance (and employer provided insurance).
UK, has private insurance as an option.
Canada has private insurance for non-standard care.
etc.
Bigd: "Who care
DAR
In 2003 he may have liked chocolate ice cream the best. Now he may like mint chocolate chip the best. By quoting his 2003 comment and implying it is his position today (when it is not), you are being dishonest. Don't do that.
Single payer was not even on the table this go around. Unfortunately. It will be again because inevitably the US will not be able to afford feeding the greed beast as we currently do. Costs will have to be controlled as they are so successfully in all of our peer countries.
D.
***
Bigd: "Just because a person provides an SSN it does not mean that it is a legal number.>>
DAR
Sometimes people break the law. Example: Obama is against murder. You don't say: "Oh, well, sometimes people commit murder even though it's against the law, so why does he bother to be against it?"
That's what you are doing. Think about it.
Bigd: "...illegals can get care.>>
DAR
It's true, people break the law. BC/BS checks for legal status by requiring a SSN. What would you have them do?
Bigd: it is illegal to be here in the first place.>>
DAR
Then why didn't your Bush do something about it? And abortion too?
You guys are so played by your republican party.
D.
***
BLK: Why did you become a citizen of a country you find so much to fault?>>
DAR
So I could file a petition for status someone else. Their current one had been bogged down for years.
I work to improve America. Sad to say, the history of those like you, and Bigd, has been to destroy America. An astonishing claim you won't take seriously I know, but it's true.
You can read about what I am talking about:
here.
Sad but true.
BLK: Are you a chronic complainer?>>
DAR
Not at all. But boy you are! I am fairly happy with my health care arrangement. It's pricey and going to get worse but I can afford it. Millions of others cannot.
BLK: Or did you want the benefits of being a true citizen?>>
DAR
Not really. That's why I waited for 21 years. The only change was the ability to vote, travel under a US passport, and file a petition for status for someone else.
D.
***
BLK: "people are not turned away from ERs-">>
DAR
Health practitioners are no doubt generous and caring. They do what they can and the demand is great. It's not their fault that the system is so screwed up. But as per the law as I cited last night, unless you are dying or giving birth, if you don't have insurance or can't pay, they don't have to do anything but stabilize you and send you on your way.
BLK: And the government will reimburse those visits.>>
DAR
A stat I read last night said less than half of the cost of unpaid for ER care is reimbursed by the government.
And this:
"According to a May 2003 American Medical Association (AMA) study, emergency physicians annually provide, on average, $138,300 of uncompensated care under the aegis of EMTALA."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_room --wiki
D.
**
Bigd: "Why do you lie about what you said?">>
DAR
I didn't. Observe the difference between:
"Your advocacy for illegals getting care (at our expense)…”
And my advocacy for your comment:
“Illegals will get care”
Do you see the difference? (hint: it's in the parenthesis).
Nice try though! I almost thought you had me for a minute.
D.
***
Bigd: Blake pays his own way.>>
DAR
He doesn't pay for his risk. If he gets cancer, or MS, or his ticker blows a valve and he racks up $200k or any number in excess of his net worth. We'll (probably) cover his bottom. He's only one serious accident, illness or hospital bill away from converting to a hardcore liberal! And they'll probably take him, liberals are so easy going and forgiving.
Bigd: Illegals are ILLEGAL.>>
DAR
Spoken with true tautological brilliance!
Bigd: Reagan signed amnesty on the promise that the border issue would be fixed.>>
DAR
Are you suggesting that Reagan could really have been that dumb?
D.
----------------
"To listen even very briefly to Ronald Reagan is to realize that here is a man upon whose synapses the termites have dined long and hard." --Christopher Hitchens
***
Bigd; "...there is a provision that if one family member is eligible for the affordability credit then all are.>>
DAR
Show this.
Bigd: "...courts have erroneously awarded citizenship to anyone born here">>
DAR
What? It's an error to think that people born here are citizens!?
You really can't read the Constitution can you?
The "courts"? You mean the supreme court. Who do you think should interpret the Constitution?
D.
***
BLK: "Democrats holding the doors of the universities closed to Blacks, and setting dogs">>
DAR
Those were Dixiecrat conservatives. Your people! The ones Nixon took back with his "southern strategy." The ones in your little rally that are still pissed that liberals made them stop doing those things.
Next on the check list, full equality for gays.
D.
--------------
Quick history lesson:
"Liberal policies made America the freest, wealthiest, most successful and most powerful nation in human history. Conservatism in power always threatens to undo that national progress, and is almost always frustrated by the innate decency and democratic instincts of the American people...
If your workplace is safe; if your children go to school rather than being forced into labor; if you are paid a living wage, including overtime; if you enjoy a 40-hour week and you are allowed to join a union to protect your rights -- you can thank liberals. If your food is not poisoned and your water is drinkable -- you can thank liberals. If your parents are eligible for Medicare and Social Security, so they can grow old in dignity without bankrupting your family -- you can thank liberals. If our rivers are getting cleaner and our air isn't black with pollution; if our wilderness is protected and our countryside is still green -- you can thank liberals. If people of all races can share the same public facilities; if everyone has the right to vote; if couples fall in love and marry regardless of race; if we have finally begun to transcend a segregated society -- you can thank liberals. Progressive innovations like those and so many others were achieved
by long, difficult struggles against entrenched power. What defined conservatism, and conservatives, was their opposition to every one of those advances.
The country we know and love today was built by those victories for liberalism -- with the support of the American people."
-- Joe Conason
***
BLK: "really hypocritical- an atheist presuming to know what Jesus would want-">>
DAR
Actually, everyone is on the exact same footing when it comes to figuring out what Jesus may want. All we have, all of us, are stories in a book written by people who never met him. It's not a very good foundation but it's all there is with regard to anything about Jesus.
BLK: "everyone has access to basic healthcare- they just have to pay for it- what is wrong with that?">>
DAR
I think that's great. In each of the 36 countries that do a better and cheaper and fairer job of getting healthcare to "everyone," it is paid for, by "everyone."
So I think we agree. Kinda.
D.
------------------
ps. There is one thing we do know Jesus wanted and he stated it clearly. Note:
“Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.” --Luke 6:30
So I ask you, Mr. Blake, Mr. self professed Christian. Give me all of your money. All of it. I am a man, and I asketh of thee. Now are you going to obey the words of Jesus or are you going to make excuses? We'll see.
Oh - I need someone to clean my house too. So if you have any daughters, I'd be glad to buy them from you with your money.
Exodus 21:7
Deut 15:12
Read your Bible.
***
I asked you if you knew the difference between:
a) “Your advocacy for illegals getting care (at our expense)…”
And my advocacy for your comment:
b) “Illegals will get care”
There is a difference.
You claimed "a", and when I asked "when did I say that" you provided "b."
So your example evaporates.
With regard to insults, as usual, I will be far more polite than you. I didn't call you scum today.
Bigd: "...take her to Canada. Nothing but the best for momma."
DAR
She's a very religious person that loves Glen Beck (until recently, the other day she said she thinks he may be crazy).
She lived in Canada for 22 years and the US about 43. She may be politically far right but she's not so dense as to not know that Canada's medical system is better. She'd take it in a heart beat.
D.
**
I followed the first link at your own link and found:
***
ABC News Was Misquoted on Crowd Size
ABC News Reported D.C. Rally Size in Tens of Thousands, Not 1M to 1.5M as Activist Said.
LINK.
***
[Scientists thought the earth was cooling in the 1970's]
DAR
As I informed you July 2:
***
The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.
The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.
But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.
The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.
"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate ... htm?csp=34
DAR
And that was 35+ years ago. We've learned quite a bit since then. So please update your (dis)information.
D.
-------------------
See also also this FAQ, for more debunk.
***
[Al Gore peace prize bashing]
DAR
Flashback, June 8th, on this forum:
***
BIGD: "Al Gore got a peace prize for something that had nothing to do with peace.">>
DAR
Tell that to the Pentagon:
"Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us"
Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... heobserver
***
Al Gore shared the peace prize because hundreds of millions of people being displaced around the world has *profound* consequences for "peace."
D.
-----------------
Or as the Nobel Prize page <a href="http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peac ... /">says</a>:
"for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"
***
Speaking of Clinton, and "Bush's failures," this just in:
---
Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy
Excerpt:
"On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.
...today's report shows that Bush flunked on every relevant dimension..."
LINK.
But it's all Clinton's fault of course.
***
Darrel says:
Monday Sep 14th, 2009 at 21:47
BLK: “they gave one to Carter, for God’s sake”>>
***
“The Nobel Peace Prize 2002
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2002 to Jimmy Carter, for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.
During his presidency (1977-1981), Carter’s mediation was a vital contribution to the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, in itself a great enough achievement to qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize. At a time when the cold war between East and West was still predominant, he placed renewed emphasis on the place of human rights in international politics.
Through his Carter Center, which celebrates its 20th anniversary in 2002, Carter has since his presidency undertaken very extensive and persevering conflict resolution on several continents. He has shown outstanding commitment to human rights, and has served as an observer at countless elections all over the world. He has worked hard on many fronts to fight tropical diseases and to bring about growth and progress in developing countries. Carter has thus been active in several of the problem areas that have figured prominently in the over one hundred years of Peace Prize history.
In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international co-operation based on international law, respect for human rights, and economic development.”
Oslo, 11 October 2002
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peac ... press.html
***
BLK: "John Coleman, one of the founders of the Weather Channel, has long said...">>
DAR
John Coleman earned a degree in Journalism in 1957 and he used that to work up to being a "weather anchor" on TV. He has no training in the field of climatology and what he says about the issue of climatology should be considered in this context.
If you would like to defend any of his claims, please do (few of them are even scientific, mostly emotion, conspiracy and innuendo). It's all very bottom of the barrel.
D.
----------------
"Coleman's only obvious connection to weather and climate is as a TV weather reporter and simply being the “founder of the Weather Channel” and when it comes to climate science being a reporter of weather really means nothing."
***
Nice unpacking of the whole number thing here:
***
Tea for Two… Million?
FreedomWorks, Twitter, and the evolution of an error
Columbia Journalism Review.
D.
-------------
"Even Glenn Beck, who fashioned himself, from his perch in New York City, the day’s master of ceremonies via his 9/12 Project, grudgingly accepted those numbers: “The official estimate is 60,000 people,” he said during his live coverage of the protest. “I’ve lived in Washington. It looks more than 60,000. But we’ll go with the official numbers today.”
***
BLK: "He [Obama] said he would be transparent,>>
DAR
He said he would be see through? Even superman can't do that.
Citation please. If you would like examples of how he has made government more transparent, just let me know.
BLK: "...he said the bills wold be on his website for 5 days,...>>
DAR
Yes he did. Here is the official excuse for dropping that ball.
"During the campaign, the president committed to introducing more sunlight into the lawmaking process by posting nonemergency legislation online for five days before signing it. The president remains committed to bringing more transparency to government, and in this spirit the White House has posted legislation expected to come to the president's desk online for comment. We will be implementing this policy in full soon; currently we are working through implementation procedures and some initial issues with the congressional calendar. In the meantime, we will continue to post legislation on our Web site for comment as it moves through congress over the next few weeks."
DAR
This would be broken commitment, not a lie. If you have trouble grasping that, think of all of the instances in which Bush said he would do something, and didn't (I can provide a long list if you like). You wouldn't consider those lies, and neither would I.
This is because to show a lie you would need to show that they *knew* the statement/promise/commitment was false when they made it.
D.
***
BLK: that fallacious argument>>
DAR
I am sorry that you don't know what a fallacious argument is. What is the name of this supposed "fallacy" I used? You can't provide this because my claim is a rather mundane statement of fact.
Bush failed to stop the 9/11 attacks.
This is not even a controversial statement of fact. Likewise, Clinton failed to stop the first attack on the twin towers. Please learn to understand basic English.
BLK: Clinton was President- during his term, babies were born out of wedlock->>
DAR
Absolutely correct. This usually falls under the category of "teen pregnancy" and it is something all presidents work toward diminishing. The US performs very poorly in this category compared to peer countries. Sorry to "bash the US" but I am interested in truth, not flag waving based on feel good BS.
This problem is intricately connected with abortion so it should be important to you that the US doesn't do better.
Oh, and note: "According to 2006 data from the Guttmacher Institute, those red states accounted for eight of the 10 states with the highest teenage birthrates."
NYT's
The problem is aggravated by the fact that Abstinence Only Education does not work and in fact causes more teen pregnancy. Ask Sarah Palin about that.
You will accuse me of bragging but... I did an hour long TV show on this topic for our local cable access channel and it won best "documentary" category of the year.
Much of the information covered can be read here if you are interested.
BLK: Clinton failed to stop unwed births and teen pregnancy.>>
DAR
Actually, his record on this was very good. The US hit a 60 year low under his tenure. Consider:
"I am very encouraged by new data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing that teen birth rates in the United States have reached their lowest level since record keeping began 60 years ago. These preliminary data for 1999 show that birth rates among 15 to 19 year-olds dropped 3 percent from the previous year and 20 percent from the most recent peak in 1991."
LINK
D.
***
[Why so many US nuts?]
DAR
I had a customer ask me this the other day, and it will be the topic of our next meeting.
I think the answer to the question of why the US is so dysfunctional in these important social categories, is largely attributable to the following data... as carefully outlined in this short article by my friend, Art.
D.
***
BECK: "Imagine if a crowd like THIS showed up to protest Bush. What do you think David Axelrod would have said then?"
DAR
That's easy. He would have said they were right. And with good reason.
Far bigger crowds showed up, here and around the world, to protest Bush.
D.
-----------------
"Europe saw the biggest mobilization of protesters, including a rally of 3 million people in Rome, which is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally.[2]
According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war."[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_a ... e_Iraq_War --wiki
***
Bigd: “The protest no doubt consisted mostly of conservatives but there were many liberals and moderates as well.”>>
DAR
Well, by Bigdog math, close. There was one! And look how they treated him. Where would anyone possibly get the idea that this was an anti-Obama event, by conservatives, and not open to dissent from that position?
See the video. I see at least six security guards which grew to over twenty. They did what they could.
The Liberal.
LINK
D.
***
Clinton had "Osama offered to him" debunked:
http://www.blogd.com/archives/000526.html
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - Sept)
SEPT 15, 2009
***
BLK: "WEATHER is what I call life"
DAR
"Weather" doesn't change the level and temperature of the ocean.
Climate change does.
Learn the difference.
I could provide you the resources to do this but I've done this before you and show no signs of interest in correcting your errors.
D.
***
BLK: "[Coleman] yet ANOTHER expert you dismiss">>
DAR
He's not an expert. His training is in journalism. His comments about climatology show his understanding to be at the high school level, his errors are obvious, laughable and indefensible.
Try defending *one* (or more) and see.
BLK: "Someone who has been observing weather for 52 years has no credibility?">>
DAR
Correct. None whatsoever.
BLK: "Climatology is still in its infancy">>
DAR
Not really:
"Perhaps the earliest person to hypothesize the concept of climate change was the medieval Chinese scientist Shen Kuo (1031-1095 AD)."
Early climate researchers include Edmund Halley, who published a map of the trade winds in 1686..."
etc.
BLK: "I would certainly trust [Coleman]... over James Hansen>>
DAR
Of course. James Hansen is a world renowned expert in this field and actually knows what he is talking about.
D.
-----------------
"In 2009, Hansen was awarded the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal,[65] the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his "outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena."[66]
"Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996..."
"...2008, Hansen was named by EarthSky Communications and a panel of 600 scientist-advisors as the Scientist Communicator of the Year, citing him as an "outspoken authority on climate change"
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen">Etc.</a>
***
ADM: "for an organization of it’s [ACORN's] size... that’s true of a lot of organizations.">>
DAR
For example:
"...Numbers reported by the Department of Defense show a sickening pattern. In 2006, 2,947 sexual assaults were reported -- 73% more than in 2004."
"Women serving in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq."
Rapists in the Ranks.
If a handful of people involved in ACORN had been raped, these guys would be calling it a "rapist organization."
AMD: "ACORN is a huge organization">>
DAR
400,000 members.
The real reason for this mindless and baseless hatred against ACORN?
"ACORN's priorities have included: better housing and wages for the poor, more community development investment from banks and governments, better public schools, [neighborhood safety, voter registration, health care] and other social justice issues."
So they work to make the world a better place, especially for the poor. Most places in the world this sort of action is understood to be a good thing.
D.
----------------
ps. Mostly it's the voter registration. Because when more people vote, republicans lose.
***
Hey FairestW, I have two questions for you or anyone else, if you have a moment.
It's regarding this quote from yesterday:
"Community service is the first step toward fascism."
--Rush Limbaugh, Sept 14, 2009
DAR
For the last 25 years or so, I have, about once a month, in all of the various towns I have lived, volunteered to play piano at retirement centers and senior homes.
I play the classics like "Oh my Darling Clementine," and "Silver Threads Among the Gold" and then surprise them with lots of ragtime and boogie woogie.
It's enjoyed by all and they say things like "He's a doosey" and "he's got a lot of pep." (actual quotes)
Two questions:
Am I taking a step toward fascism by doing this community service?
And:
Is there any comment so disgusting and revolting, so contrary to truth, honor and human decency that these conservative commentators on the right, like Limbaugh, will refrain from saying it?
Just wondering.
D.
***
ADM; 'ACORN certainly needs to clean house over the latest scandal...">>
DAR
Jon Stewart let them have it tonight (that's why he's America's most trusted news man).
But it's already in the works:
"Following the release of the Washington DC and New York videos, the Senate voted 83 to 7 to pass an amendment to exclude ACORN from funding under the Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill."
As all good freedom loving libertarians know, prostitution is none of the government's business. It's two people engaging in commerce. But it really doesn't need help with government funded assistance.
D.
***
[1.2million at 9/12 event in Washington]
DAR
Really? You are going to try and defend your 1.2 million number? What a load.
Even "Freedom Works" is down to the 600-800k range, and that's way out of line with standard sources. See four references showing 60-75k <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_M ... 0">here</a>.
Glenn Beck, the fellow shamelessly using 9/11 to promote himself, and the person most invested in making this thing into something larger than it was, was there and he said:
“I’ve lived in Washington. It looks more than 60,000."
You don't mistake 60,000 for 1.2 million, no way, no how, unless you're a moron.
Oops.
Shot myself in the foot with that one.
D.
---------------
"There really isn't more shameless a huckster working the snake-oil circuits of cable punditry these days than Glenn Beck. He embodies the worst of right-wing talking-head traits: obsessively wrong, compulsively stupid, reflexively mendacious, and always, always, shamelessly opportunistic.
He never misses a trick. Especially the 9/11 tragedy. He's managed to turn it into a big annual right-wing nutfest, particularly with this year's debut of the 9/12 teabaggers protest, a project Beck launched some six months ago."
***
DAR
As always, I am interested in finding the truth of the matter. If the number is 1.2m, I want to believe that. If the best data supports that, I will believe that. The answer should be able to be known, objectively measurable within a reasonable range. The 1.2m number, as is well known, came from a falsehood passed along by Malkin, which was quickly shot down and found to be inflated by 30x.
I am glad you are "coming" and glad you are there. You are a thorn in the side of reasonable conservatives and work daily to make your party more fringe and less electable. Your behavior is consistently an embarrassment to fair minded, honest, intelligent conservatives.
***
SEPT 16
***
BLK: "[Obama] had the Mall cameras deliberately turned off">>
DAR
But of course. It's even Obama fault that you can't confirm your million. It's a plot. He conspired to do it.
D.
-----------------
"After the break, Rush said that Joe Wilson didn't call the president a liar, he just said "you lie" to the president."
http://mediamatters.org/research/200909160029 Media Matter.
***
Bigd: 'So by Darrel math because there was one liberal protesting against the protesters, there were no liberals protesting with them. That is loony even for you.">>
DAR
No, I didn't say that. But your claim that the crowd was "mostly conservatives" and that there were "many liberals and moderates as well" is of course ridiculous.
As this video shows, the fact that one liberal shows up with his sign and needs dozens of security for protection from the seething chanting mob that circles him and singles him out, certainly refutes this fantasy that this protest was anything other than entirely your folks, and that they were also tolerant of any dissent from that opinion.
D.
***
[Missile strategy change]
"...the plan was scrapped in part because, after a review, the U.S. has concluded that Iran is less focused on developing the kind of long-range missiles for which the system was originally developed, making the building of an expensive new shield unnecessary. New technology also has arisen that military advisers decided could be deployed sooner and more effectively,..."
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/1 ... l">LINK</a>
Cheaper, better, smarter.
***
Sept 17, 2009
***
a) It's not possible for them to know what is in the bill since it isn't finish and is changing daily.
b) To the degree they (doctor's/nurses) don't like it, this can be largely attributed to the fact that it still feeds the greed and waste machine and doesn't go far enough in the direction that will eventually work (i.e. public option).
Observe:
"A RWJF survey summarized in the September 14, 2009 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine shows that 62.9 percent of physicians nationwide support proposals to expand health care coverage that include both public and private insurance options—where people under the age of 65 would have the choice of enrolling in a new public health insurance plan (like Medicare) or in private plans. The survey shows that just 27.3 percent of physicians support a new program that does not include a public option and instead provides subsidies for low-income people to purchase private insurance. Only 9.6 percent of doctors nationwide support a system where a Medicare-like public program is created in lieu of any private insurance. A majority of physicians (58%) also support expanding Medicare eligibility to those between the ages of 55 and 64.
In every region of the country, a majority of physicians supported a combination of public and private options, as did physicians who identified themselves as primary care providers, surgeons, or other medical subspecialists. Among those who identified themselves as members of the American Medical Association, 62.2 percent favored both the public and private options."
http://www.rwjf.org/healthreform/qualit ... p?id=48408.
D.
***
DAR
Bush's unnecessary provocation of Russia on this was always about appeasing the neo-con wing that still hasn't gotten over fighting commies (and military pork for shiny star wars type nonsense). Long range missile interceptors are expensive and don't work very well if at all.
Perhaps some of the prudent, fiscally conservative folks here can explain why the US should be dropping billions in Europe to defend Europe from a long range missile threat that doesn't exist.
Iran may get short and medium range capability some day but mobile and sea based interception is cheaper/better/smarter. So says Bush's Secretary of Defense and Obama's Secretary of Defense.
Stupid, waste, of money.
Bigd: "Now we have this [Breit Bart] dose of reality.">>
DAR
A "secret report" someone has "seen."
You link claims this "secret report":
"...says Iran is likely to "overcome problems" on developing a delivery system."
Yeah, put it in a truck, and drive it down town. Which means your $100's billions spent on high tech aimed at the sky is a waste and distraction from the real threats on the ground.
Dumb.
D.
***
BLK: "I would bet that the study of climatology was built on his [Coleman's] shoulders.">>
DAR
Aside from the absurdity that a meteorologist would be an expert in climatology... your Coleman isn't even a meteorologist, he just plays one on Tee Vee. He's a journalist who got grandfathered in because he was on TV in the early days.
Saying "the study of climatology" was built upon his shoulders is like saying our study of the geologic column, rock formation and bedrock, stand on the shoulders of Fred Flintstone.
D.
----------------
"I AM a fair minded, honest intelligent conservative." --Blake, Wednesday Sep 16th, 2009
***
Darrel says:
Thursday Sep 17th, 2009 at 21:00
I didn’t mention the AMA.
Just because climate scientists are experts in climatology, it doesn’t mean that they are necessarily knowledgeable about the politics and the cure for America’s mess which is a political problem, not a health problem.
Likewise, doctors are experts in health, not necessarily the politics.
My reference to “greed” refers to the system, not to individuals like doctors and nurses (which, as my survey shows, a majority favor the inclusion of a public option).
No other peer country in the world allows insurance companies to make a profit off of denying necessary basic care to citizens. It’s immoral and it will be stopped.
D.
—————–
“The Baucus bill is the worst piece of healthcare legislation I’ve seen in 30 years,” Dean said last night at a healthcare town hall and book signing in Washington. “In fact, it’s a $60 billion giveaway to the health insurance industry every year,” he said. “It was written by healthcare lobbyists, so that’s not a surprise. It’s an outrage.”
–Howard Dean, physician, politician
***
This just in, your poll is *complete rubbish.*
Observe the dismantling at 538 (a site I found about a year ago and which provides extensive, professional, objective scientific analysis of polling]:
IBD/TIPP Doctors Poll Is Not Trustworthy.
Your poll is from the same guys that had "John McCain winning the youth vote 74-22..."
No, really.
Obama won it by about 66 - 32% Link.
[Ouch]
D.
***
BRB: "My orthopedic doctor has already told me he will quit if this bill goes through.>>
DAR
Good. He'll be replaced by someone who cares about helping people while still having the opportunity to make a very good living (as happens in all the other rich countries).
BRB: "if people are out of work and don’t have any money, how does he think they will be able to pay a fine.>>
DAR
A fair question. The answer:
"The Baucus plan, like the other bills, offers subsidies to help low- and middle-income people buy insurance...."
"Mr. Baucus would extend benefits to millions of the uninsured by expanding Medicaid, at a federal cost of $287 billion over 10 years, and by offering subsidies to individuals and families, at a cost of $463 billion over 10 years."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/healt ... ealth.html
Why don't you try asking intelligent questions more often instead of the focus on stuff like:
"This man is not well."
D.
***
Bigd: "The 62.2% is irrelevant because it is of a small number.">>
DAR
Did you miss the part that refers to all physicians and not just the AMA?
"62.9 percent of physicians nationwide support proposals to expand health care coverage that include both public and private insurance options"
The difference between 62.2% and 62.9%, is obviously, tiny.
Bigd: "You indicate that the system is filled with greed and makes profit off denying necessary care. This is not true.">>
DAR
a) The system is owned by wall street which demands more and more profit be squeezed out, based upon greed.
b) The more they deny care, the more money they make. A perverse and immoral incentive.
I don't think it is wrong for companies to make a profit, mine does.
If you want medicare to be reimbursed at the "normal rate" then you are very much for vastly increasing government spending (so doc's can make *more* money). So we need more taxes for that or we can borrow it from China. Which method do you prefer?
Bigd: "If people could get the same tax benefit...">>
DAR
Tax cuts are not going to solve our health care systems problems. Good one!
Ron Paul was right about the war, but otherwise, he is a libertarian and a loon. But I repeat myself. His policies on health care and pretty much everything else are completely untenable for America and aren't taken seriously outside of a small circle of zealots. And that's putting sugar on it.
D.
***
Yes, Nate's an authority and his five point response to your poll rips it to shreds.
Bigd: how many polls have you supported that were blatantly biased?>>
DAR
I don't support polls that are blatantly biased.
Bigd: Show me where Nate has debunked any poll that is in favor of any liberal project?>>
DAR
He's done it lots of times. Do it <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/">yourself</a>.
Bigd: When did the poll showing McCain ahead take place?>>
DAR
Oct 18, 2008. Nate rips this apart <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/ ... l">here</a>.
If you read this, and understand it, you will never cite these guys again. It's an astonishing and careful roast.
Bigd: Was he in fact ahead before he selected Palin or before the collapse?>>
DAR
McCain was *never* ahead in the youth vote. And he got creamed 2 to 1.
Bigd: I know a number of people who are young who were going to vote for him...>>
DAR
[Rolls eyes]
D.
***
Bigd: "62% of all physicians (and I doubt that) is vastly greater than 62% who are members of the AMA since it only has 18% of all physicians.>>
DAR
Doesn't matter. "Percentage" accounts for that. The sampling of the AMA members and the sampling of all physicians differs by an extremely statistically insignificant .7 percent. So it makes no sense to refer to them separately with regard to this issue.
Bigd: "Medicare should be privatized and not government run.">>
DAR
Two problems.
a) Private companies don't want the old and chronically sick (they don't even want the young and sick) and the costs would go through the roof.
b) the costs would go THROUGH the roof, IF they wanted them, and they don't (and the costs would go through the roof!).
Example: If the VA was turned over to the private sector, what would happen? The costs would go through the roof. That's why it's not done, and everyone knows that's why it is not done (who is not a loon). The VA controls costs, as does medicare (largely by shafting doctors).
All socialized systems control costs far better than the patchwork mess we have in the private sector which is filled with bloat and perverse incentives (and greed for the profit) which wastes unbelievable amounts of money.
Bigd: "Ron Paul is a kook but Howard Dean is not?>>
DAR
Correct. Dean is mainstream and nearly made top of the ticket. Ron Paul will never go anywhere other than the slot he has and a little fringe appeal on the side. Like Nader. Interesting characters but they are never going anywhere politically.
D.
***
Bigd: Your assurance that Nate is an expert is not enough.>>
DAR
Try responding to his arguments rather than attacking his credibility. His arguments are self explanatory and render your poll worthless, and it's not even close.
Bigd: I don’t see him on TV discussing the polls.>>
DAR
I've seen him on the tube and heard him on the radio, but this is hardly a valuable threshold for competence. In America, if you are really foolish, they give you your own show.
Bigd: Your poll is a very scientific poll that had a 43% response>>
DAR
What do you mean "a 43% response?"
Bigd: I know hundreds of physicians.>>
DAR
And you have polled exactly how many of them? Good grief.
Bigd: "[Doc's bad experience with] public options given their experience with Medicare.>>
DAR
Maybe the fact that they make a *lot* less money is a factor. Ah, but one company to deal with and all basic care is covered.
Bigd: Did he [Obama] cut a deal like he did with Big Pharma?>>
DAR
You're confusing him with Bush. Americans now subsidize low prices paid by people in other countries for the very same drugs, made by the same company in the same factory.
D.
-----------------
"...Well, for every two doctors in the U.S., there is now one health-insurance employee—more than 470,000 in total. In 2006, it cost almost $500 per person just to administer health insurance."
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care/2
***
Bigd: "The VA and Medicare to not control costs.">>
DAR
Of course they do. You can't be this dumb. The cost of fee's are set, controlled, by the government. Completely. This is pure socialized medicine and it is vastly more efficient/cheaper because of this.
No sane person questions this and you cannot provide a mainstream source that supports your unbelievable position. They all agree with me. I can bury you in references.
Bigd: The VA is billing the private insurance of veterans>>
DAR
Show this is significant.
Bigd: the VA can falsely claim it has reduced costs.>>
DAR
The VA costs are a fraction of private care costs. This is because, like with the systems in the rest of the world, costs are controlled. Fee's are set and they are much less than the bloated for profit private system in the US (where often you can't even get a quote for the cost for a procedure in advance).
Example: A overnight hospital stay in Japan, with food, is $11 (That's the fee, as set by the government).
Hospitals and doc's have all of their fee's set by the government and they are astonishingly low. And hospitals and Doc's in Japan are *private* and they compete FIERCELY for the business even at these low prices (signs plastered all over buses etc.).
Japan spends about 8% of GDP on health. We spend about 18%.
If privatizing the VA would cost less, show me a republican politician who has put forward a bill to privatize the VA in order to REDUCE costs. It would be laughed out of the room because of the absurdity. The assertion is ridiculous. You actually believe this? You're a nurse?!
Bigd: Medicare is broke.>>
DAR
You're wrong. "The Medicare hospital insurance trust fund will become insolvent by 2019."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_% ... _States%29 (5 references given)
The government is broke. And you want to borrow more money from China to put missiles in Europe and protect the French. I suppose our credit isn't all used up yet (we spend as much as the rest of the world combined on the military). Medicare is a bill the government pays. "In 1966, Medicare and Medicaid made up 1 percent of total government spending; now that figure is 20 percent, and quickly rising." (Atlantic, ibid).
And you want to fix this by bringing in another partner who would extract profit out of this? Wall street?
You have a lot of blind faith in your free market religion. Other countries have tried this. It doesn't work.
"The inevitable tendency in capitalism is the accumulation of wealth. According to its own laws, capital always moves to where it can generate the greatest profit, never the greatest good. Why does everyone know the saying, "The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer?" Because it's true."
- Richard Curtis
Bigd: [Medicare] has higher admin costs than private insurance (which your poll points out)>>
DAR
What? Absurd. Show this. No one who knows this issue (including some really crazy right wingers) believes medicare has higher admin costs. You need to stop reading libertarian crap.
Again:
"New England Journal of Medicine finds that health care bureaucracy cost Americans $294.3 billion in 1999. The $1,059 per capita spent on health care administration was more than three times the $307 per capita in paperwork costs under Canada’s national health insurance system. Cutting U.S. health bureaucracy costs to the Canadian level would have saved $209 billion in 1999.
The study was carried out by researchers at Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information,...
The authors found that bureaucracy accounted for at least 31% of total U.S. health spending in 1999 vs. 16.7% in Canada."
"Hundreds of billions are squandered each year on healthcare bureaucracy, more than enough to cover all of the uninsured, pay for full drug coverage for seniors, and upgrade coverage for the tens of millions who are underinsured,"
http://www.abilitymagazine.com/news_Can ... hCare.html
I could give you hundreds of standard mainstream references showing the same thing. The idea that the private system has lower admin. costs is beyond wrong. Anyone who believes this is misinformed, a loon, or both. Sorry about that.
Bigd: why does it kick in after the 2012 elections?>>
DAR
Government moves slow. I am sure parts of it would kick in much faster than that.
D.
***
Bigd: "One of Nate’s issues with OBD was that they mailed the questions.>>
DAR
He said it is "unusual" and resulted in a error rate of 7% (in one poll).
Bigd: Your poll would be invalid under that rule:">>
DAR
Not invalid. That was one concern of five and not remotely the strongest.
But I am impressed. Good job! I didn't see that it was a mail out poll. I don't like that. This certainly reduces it's credibility because you lose the randomness (respondents may be more motivated from a particular persuasion).
However, notice that the AMA poll, which was a random sample of 6,000 members, produced the very same statistic.
This just came out Monday. I bet Nate won't like it because of the mailing feature. It doesn't nullify it but it weakens it for sure.
Now, back to your poll, junk!
D.
----------------
Question in your poll:
"Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better?"
When a person who is generally positive about the prospects for health care reform reads that, they think "this poll is a ridiculous biased joke" and they toss the half-completed poll in the trash.
When a person who hates the ides of health care reform reads that, they check "yes" with glee and mail it right back.
You can't put a question like that on a mail-in poll without killing the validity of your results. And you can't have been in the polling business for two weeks without knowing the impact it is likely to have."
--Jan Wolter, on 538
Bonus:
"A huge percentage of physicians said they would move out of the business when Medicare was being debated (back in 65). The opposite occurred - medical schools upped their attendance and we had more Doctors. Further, there is no evidence that any left, or if they did, it had no effect.
Scare tactics are just that: tactics."
--Paul K.
***
BLK: "Iran launched a satellite awhile back">>
DAR
Oh my. That is scary. Is that allowed? We have satellites and now they got to put one up too? Somebody should stop them. After all, they're not really humans are they, they're Arabs or Persians or something unknown and scary.
Perhaps Blake can explain why the US should be spending billions in Europe to defend Europe (includes France) from a long range missile threat that doesn’t exist?
No, I didn't think so.
It's all childish 'tit for tat' and we're "caving" by not continuing to annoy a former enemy who is now an ally.
Children in adult bodies.
D.
***
***
BLK: "WEATHER is what I call life"
DAR
"Weather" doesn't change the level and temperature of the ocean.
Climate change does.
Learn the difference.
I could provide you the resources to do this but I've done this before you and show no signs of interest in correcting your errors.
D.
***
BLK: "[Coleman] yet ANOTHER expert you dismiss">>
DAR
He's not an expert. His training is in journalism. His comments about climatology show his understanding to be at the high school level, his errors are obvious, laughable and indefensible.
Try defending *one* (or more) and see.
BLK: "Someone who has been observing weather for 52 years has no credibility?">>
DAR
Correct. None whatsoever.
BLK: "Climatology is still in its infancy">>
DAR
Not really:
"Perhaps the earliest person to hypothesize the concept of climate change was the medieval Chinese scientist Shen Kuo (1031-1095 AD)."
Early climate researchers include Edmund Halley, who published a map of the trade winds in 1686..."
etc.
BLK: "I would certainly trust [Coleman]... over James Hansen>>
DAR
Of course. James Hansen is a world renowned expert in this field and actually knows what he is talking about.
D.
-----------------
"In 2009, Hansen was awarded the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal,[65] the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his "outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena."[66]
"Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996..."
"...2008, Hansen was named by EarthSky Communications and a panel of 600 scientist-advisors as the Scientist Communicator of the Year, citing him as an "outspoken authority on climate change"
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen">Etc.</a>
***
ADM: "for an organization of it’s [ACORN's] size... that’s true of a lot of organizations.">>
DAR
For example:
"...Numbers reported by the Department of Defense show a sickening pattern. In 2006, 2,947 sexual assaults were reported -- 73% more than in 2004."
"Women serving in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq."
Rapists in the Ranks.
If a handful of people involved in ACORN had been raped, these guys would be calling it a "rapist organization."
AMD: "ACORN is a huge organization">>
DAR
400,000 members.
The real reason for this mindless and baseless hatred against ACORN?
"ACORN's priorities have included: better housing and wages for the poor, more community development investment from banks and governments, better public schools, [neighborhood safety, voter registration, health care] and other social justice issues."
So they work to make the world a better place, especially for the poor. Most places in the world this sort of action is understood to be a good thing.
D.
----------------
ps. Mostly it's the voter registration. Because when more people vote, republicans lose.
***
Hey FairestW, I have two questions for you or anyone else, if you have a moment.
It's regarding this quote from yesterday:
"Community service is the first step toward fascism."
--Rush Limbaugh, Sept 14, 2009
DAR
For the last 25 years or so, I have, about once a month, in all of the various towns I have lived, volunteered to play piano at retirement centers and senior homes.
I play the classics like "Oh my Darling Clementine," and "Silver Threads Among the Gold" and then surprise them with lots of ragtime and boogie woogie.
It's enjoyed by all and they say things like "He's a doosey" and "he's got a lot of pep." (actual quotes)
Two questions:
Am I taking a step toward fascism by doing this community service?
And:
Is there any comment so disgusting and revolting, so contrary to truth, honor and human decency that these conservative commentators on the right, like Limbaugh, will refrain from saying it?
Just wondering.
D.
***
ADM; 'ACORN certainly needs to clean house over the latest scandal...">>
DAR
Jon Stewart let them have it tonight (that's why he's America's most trusted news man).
But it's already in the works:
"Following the release of the Washington DC and New York videos, the Senate voted 83 to 7 to pass an amendment to exclude ACORN from funding under the Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill."
As all good freedom loving libertarians know, prostitution is none of the government's business. It's two people engaging in commerce. But it really doesn't need help with government funded assistance.
D.
***
[1.2million at 9/12 event in Washington]
DAR
Really? You are going to try and defend your 1.2 million number? What a load.
Even "Freedom Works" is down to the 600-800k range, and that's way out of line with standard sources. See four references showing 60-75k <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_M ... 0">here</a>.
Glenn Beck, the fellow shamelessly using 9/11 to promote himself, and the person most invested in making this thing into something larger than it was, was there and he said:
“I’ve lived in Washington. It looks more than 60,000."
You don't mistake 60,000 for 1.2 million, no way, no how, unless you're a moron.
Oops.
Shot myself in the foot with that one.
D.
---------------
"There really isn't more shameless a huckster working the snake-oil circuits of cable punditry these days than Glenn Beck. He embodies the worst of right-wing talking-head traits: obsessively wrong, compulsively stupid, reflexively mendacious, and always, always, shamelessly opportunistic.
He never misses a trick. Especially the 9/11 tragedy. He's managed to turn it into a big annual right-wing nutfest, particularly with this year's debut of the 9/12 teabaggers protest, a project Beck launched some six months ago."
***
DAR
As always, I am interested in finding the truth of the matter. If the number is 1.2m, I want to believe that. If the best data supports that, I will believe that. The answer should be able to be known, objectively measurable within a reasonable range. The 1.2m number, as is well known, came from a falsehood passed along by Malkin, which was quickly shot down and found to be inflated by 30x.
I am glad you are "coming" and glad you are there. You are a thorn in the side of reasonable conservatives and work daily to make your party more fringe and less electable. Your behavior is consistently an embarrassment to fair minded, honest, intelligent conservatives.
***
SEPT 16
***
BLK: "[Obama] had the Mall cameras deliberately turned off">>
DAR
But of course. It's even Obama fault that you can't confirm your million. It's a plot. He conspired to do it.
D.
-----------------
"After the break, Rush said that Joe Wilson didn't call the president a liar, he just said "you lie" to the president."
http://mediamatters.org/research/200909160029 Media Matter.
***
Bigd: 'So by Darrel math because there was one liberal protesting against the protesters, there were no liberals protesting with them. That is loony even for you.">>
DAR
No, I didn't say that. But your claim that the crowd was "mostly conservatives" and that there were "many liberals and moderates as well" is of course ridiculous.
As this video shows, the fact that one liberal shows up with his sign and needs dozens of security for protection from the seething chanting mob that circles him and singles him out, certainly refutes this fantasy that this protest was anything other than entirely your folks, and that they were also tolerant of any dissent from that opinion.
D.
***
[Missile strategy change]
"...the plan was scrapped in part because, after a review, the U.S. has concluded that Iran is less focused on developing the kind of long-range missiles for which the system was originally developed, making the building of an expensive new shield unnecessary. New technology also has arisen that military advisers decided could be deployed sooner and more effectively,..."
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/1 ... l">LINK</a>
Cheaper, better, smarter.
***
Sept 17, 2009
***
a) It's not possible for them to know what is in the bill since it isn't finish and is changing daily.
b) To the degree they (doctor's/nurses) don't like it, this can be largely attributed to the fact that it still feeds the greed and waste machine and doesn't go far enough in the direction that will eventually work (i.e. public option).
Observe:
"A RWJF survey summarized in the September 14, 2009 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine shows that 62.9 percent of physicians nationwide support proposals to expand health care coverage that include both public and private insurance options—where people under the age of 65 would have the choice of enrolling in a new public health insurance plan (like Medicare) or in private plans. The survey shows that just 27.3 percent of physicians support a new program that does not include a public option and instead provides subsidies for low-income people to purchase private insurance. Only 9.6 percent of doctors nationwide support a system where a Medicare-like public program is created in lieu of any private insurance. A majority of physicians (58%) also support expanding Medicare eligibility to those between the ages of 55 and 64.
In every region of the country, a majority of physicians supported a combination of public and private options, as did physicians who identified themselves as primary care providers, surgeons, or other medical subspecialists. Among those who identified themselves as members of the American Medical Association, 62.2 percent favored both the public and private options."
http://www.rwjf.org/healthreform/qualit ... p?id=48408.
D.
***
DAR
Bush's unnecessary provocation of Russia on this was always about appeasing the neo-con wing that still hasn't gotten over fighting commies (and military pork for shiny star wars type nonsense). Long range missile interceptors are expensive and don't work very well if at all.
Perhaps some of the prudent, fiscally conservative folks here can explain why the US should be dropping billions in Europe to defend Europe from a long range missile threat that doesn't exist.
Iran may get short and medium range capability some day but mobile and sea based interception is cheaper/better/smarter. So says Bush's Secretary of Defense and Obama's Secretary of Defense.
Stupid, waste, of money.
Bigd: "Now we have this [Breit Bart] dose of reality.">>
DAR
A "secret report" someone has "seen."
You link claims this "secret report":
"...says Iran is likely to "overcome problems" on developing a delivery system."
Yeah, put it in a truck, and drive it down town. Which means your $100's billions spent on high tech aimed at the sky is a waste and distraction from the real threats on the ground.
Dumb.
D.
***
BLK: "I would bet that the study of climatology was built on his [Coleman's] shoulders.">>
DAR
Aside from the absurdity that a meteorologist would be an expert in climatology... your Coleman isn't even a meteorologist, he just plays one on Tee Vee. He's a journalist who got grandfathered in because he was on TV in the early days.
Saying "the study of climatology" was built upon his shoulders is like saying our study of the geologic column, rock formation and bedrock, stand on the shoulders of Fred Flintstone.
D.
----------------
"I AM a fair minded, honest intelligent conservative." --Blake, Wednesday Sep 16th, 2009
***
Darrel says:
Thursday Sep 17th, 2009 at 21:00
I didn’t mention the AMA.
Just because climate scientists are experts in climatology, it doesn’t mean that they are necessarily knowledgeable about the politics and the cure for America’s mess which is a political problem, not a health problem.
Likewise, doctors are experts in health, not necessarily the politics.
My reference to “greed” refers to the system, not to individuals like doctors and nurses (which, as my survey shows, a majority favor the inclusion of a public option).
No other peer country in the world allows insurance companies to make a profit off of denying necessary basic care to citizens. It’s immoral and it will be stopped.
D.
—————–
“The Baucus bill is the worst piece of healthcare legislation I’ve seen in 30 years,” Dean said last night at a healthcare town hall and book signing in Washington. “In fact, it’s a $60 billion giveaway to the health insurance industry every year,” he said. “It was written by healthcare lobbyists, so that’s not a surprise. It’s an outrage.”
–Howard Dean, physician, politician
***
This just in, your poll is *complete rubbish.*
Observe the dismantling at 538 (a site I found about a year ago and which provides extensive, professional, objective scientific analysis of polling]:
IBD/TIPP Doctors Poll Is Not Trustworthy.
Your poll is from the same guys that had "John McCain winning the youth vote 74-22..."
No, really.
Obama won it by about 66 - 32% Link.
[Ouch]
D.
***
BRB: "My orthopedic doctor has already told me he will quit if this bill goes through.>>
DAR
Good. He'll be replaced by someone who cares about helping people while still having the opportunity to make a very good living (as happens in all the other rich countries).
BRB: "if people are out of work and don’t have any money, how does he think they will be able to pay a fine.>>
DAR
A fair question. The answer:
"The Baucus plan, like the other bills, offers subsidies to help low- and middle-income people buy insurance...."
"Mr. Baucus would extend benefits to millions of the uninsured by expanding Medicaid, at a federal cost of $287 billion over 10 years, and by offering subsidies to individuals and families, at a cost of $463 billion over 10 years."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/healt ... ealth.html
Why don't you try asking intelligent questions more often instead of the focus on stuff like:
"This man is not well."
D.
***
Bigd: "The 62.2% is irrelevant because it is of a small number.">>
DAR
Did you miss the part that refers to all physicians and not just the AMA?
"62.9 percent of physicians nationwide support proposals to expand health care coverage that include both public and private insurance options"
The difference between 62.2% and 62.9%, is obviously, tiny.
Bigd: "You indicate that the system is filled with greed and makes profit off denying necessary care. This is not true.">>
DAR
a) The system is owned by wall street which demands more and more profit be squeezed out, based upon greed.
b) The more they deny care, the more money they make. A perverse and immoral incentive.
I don't think it is wrong for companies to make a profit, mine does.
If you want medicare to be reimbursed at the "normal rate" then you are very much for vastly increasing government spending (so doc's can make *more* money). So we need more taxes for that or we can borrow it from China. Which method do you prefer?
Bigd: "If people could get the same tax benefit...">>
DAR
Tax cuts are not going to solve our health care systems problems. Good one!
Ron Paul was right about the war, but otherwise, he is a libertarian and a loon. But I repeat myself. His policies on health care and pretty much everything else are completely untenable for America and aren't taken seriously outside of a small circle of zealots. And that's putting sugar on it.
D.
***
Yes, Nate's an authority and his five point response to your poll rips it to shreds.
Bigd: how many polls have you supported that were blatantly biased?>>
DAR
I don't support polls that are blatantly biased.
Bigd: Show me where Nate has debunked any poll that is in favor of any liberal project?>>
DAR
He's done it lots of times. Do it <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/">yourself</a>.
Bigd: When did the poll showing McCain ahead take place?>>
DAR
Oct 18, 2008. Nate rips this apart <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/ ... l">here</a>.
If you read this, and understand it, you will never cite these guys again. It's an astonishing and careful roast.
Bigd: Was he in fact ahead before he selected Palin or before the collapse?>>
DAR
McCain was *never* ahead in the youth vote. And he got creamed 2 to 1.
Bigd: I know a number of people who are young who were going to vote for him...>>
DAR
[Rolls eyes]
D.
***
Bigd: "62% of all physicians (and I doubt that) is vastly greater than 62% who are members of the AMA since it only has 18% of all physicians.>>
DAR
Doesn't matter. "Percentage" accounts for that. The sampling of the AMA members and the sampling of all physicians differs by an extremely statistically insignificant .7 percent. So it makes no sense to refer to them separately with regard to this issue.
Bigd: "Medicare should be privatized and not government run.">>
DAR
Two problems.
a) Private companies don't want the old and chronically sick (they don't even want the young and sick) and the costs would go through the roof.
b) the costs would go THROUGH the roof, IF they wanted them, and they don't (and the costs would go through the roof!).
Example: If the VA was turned over to the private sector, what would happen? The costs would go through the roof. That's why it's not done, and everyone knows that's why it is not done (who is not a loon). The VA controls costs, as does medicare (largely by shafting doctors).
All socialized systems control costs far better than the patchwork mess we have in the private sector which is filled with bloat and perverse incentives (and greed for the profit) which wastes unbelievable amounts of money.
Bigd: "Ron Paul is a kook but Howard Dean is not?>>
DAR
Correct. Dean is mainstream and nearly made top of the ticket. Ron Paul will never go anywhere other than the slot he has and a little fringe appeal on the side. Like Nader. Interesting characters but they are never going anywhere politically.
D.
***
Bigd: Your assurance that Nate is an expert is not enough.>>
DAR
Try responding to his arguments rather than attacking his credibility. His arguments are self explanatory and render your poll worthless, and it's not even close.
Bigd: I don’t see him on TV discussing the polls.>>
DAR
I've seen him on the tube and heard him on the radio, but this is hardly a valuable threshold for competence. In America, if you are really foolish, they give you your own show.
Bigd: Your poll is a very scientific poll that had a 43% response>>
DAR
What do you mean "a 43% response?"
Bigd: I know hundreds of physicians.>>
DAR
And you have polled exactly how many of them? Good grief.
Bigd: "[Doc's bad experience with] public options given their experience with Medicare.>>
DAR
Maybe the fact that they make a *lot* less money is a factor. Ah, but one company to deal with and all basic care is covered.
Bigd: Did he [Obama] cut a deal like he did with Big Pharma?>>
DAR
You're confusing him with Bush. Americans now subsidize low prices paid by people in other countries for the very same drugs, made by the same company in the same factory.
D.
-----------------
"...Well, for every two doctors in the U.S., there is now one health-insurance employee—more than 470,000 in total. In 2006, it cost almost $500 per person just to administer health insurance."
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care/2
***
Bigd: "The VA and Medicare to not control costs.">>
DAR
Of course they do. You can't be this dumb. The cost of fee's are set, controlled, by the government. Completely. This is pure socialized medicine and it is vastly more efficient/cheaper because of this.
No sane person questions this and you cannot provide a mainstream source that supports your unbelievable position. They all agree with me. I can bury you in references.
Bigd: The VA is billing the private insurance of veterans>>
DAR
Show this is significant.
Bigd: the VA can falsely claim it has reduced costs.>>
DAR
The VA costs are a fraction of private care costs. This is because, like with the systems in the rest of the world, costs are controlled. Fee's are set and they are much less than the bloated for profit private system in the US (where often you can't even get a quote for the cost for a procedure in advance).
Example: A overnight hospital stay in Japan, with food, is $11 (That's the fee, as set by the government).
Hospitals and doc's have all of their fee's set by the government and they are astonishingly low. And hospitals and Doc's in Japan are *private* and they compete FIERCELY for the business even at these low prices (signs plastered all over buses etc.).
Japan spends about 8% of GDP on health. We spend about 18%.
If privatizing the VA would cost less, show me a republican politician who has put forward a bill to privatize the VA in order to REDUCE costs. It would be laughed out of the room because of the absurdity. The assertion is ridiculous. You actually believe this? You're a nurse?!
Bigd: Medicare is broke.>>
DAR
You're wrong. "The Medicare hospital insurance trust fund will become insolvent by 2019."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_% ... _States%29 (5 references given)
The government is broke. And you want to borrow more money from China to put missiles in Europe and protect the French. I suppose our credit isn't all used up yet (we spend as much as the rest of the world combined on the military). Medicare is a bill the government pays. "In 1966, Medicare and Medicaid made up 1 percent of total government spending; now that figure is 20 percent, and quickly rising." (Atlantic, ibid).
And you want to fix this by bringing in another partner who would extract profit out of this? Wall street?
You have a lot of blind faith in your free market religion. Other countries have tried this. It doesn't work.
"The inevitable tendency in capitalism is the accumulation of wealth. According to its own laws, capital always moves to where it can generate the greatest profit, never the greatest good. Why does everyone know the saying, "The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer?" Because it's true."
- Richard Curtis
Bigd: [Medicare] has higher admin costs than private insurance (which your poll points out)>>
DAR
What? Absurd. Show this. No one who knows this issue (including some really crazy right wingers) believes medicare has higher admin costs. You need to stop reading libertarian crap.
Again:
"New England Journal of Medicine finds that health care bureaucracy cost Americans $294.3 billion in 1999. The $1,059 per capita spent on health care administration was more than three times the $307 per capita in paperwork costs under Canada’s national health insurance system. Cutting U.S. health bureaucracy costs to the Canadian level would have saved $209 billion in 1999.
The study was carried out by researchers at Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information,...
The authors found that bureaucracy accounted for at least 31% of total U.S. health spending in 1999 vs. 16.7% in Canada."
"Hundreds of billions are squandered each year on healthcare bureaucracy, more than enough to cover all of the uninsured, pay for full drug coverage for seniors, and upgrade coverage for the tens of millions who are underinsured,"
http://www.abilitymagazine.com/news_Can ... hCare.html
I could give you hundreds of standard mainstream references showing the same thing. The idea that the private system has lower admin. costs is beyond wrong. Anyone who believes this is misinformed, a loon, or both. Sorry about that.
Bigd: why does it kick in after the 2012 elections?>>
DAR
Government moves slow. I am sure parts of it would kick in much faster than that.
D.
***
Bigd: "One of Nate’s issues with OBD was that they mailed the questions.>>
DAR
He said it is "unusual" and resulted in a error rate of 7% (in one poll).
Bigd: Your poll would be invalid under that rule:">>
DAR
Not invalid. That was one concern of five and not remotely the strongest.
But I am impressed. Good job! I didn't see that it was a mail out poll. I don't like that. This certainly reduces it's credibility because you lose the randomness (respondents may be more motivated from a particular persuasion).
However, notice that the AMA poll, which was a random sample of 6,000 members, produced the very same statistic.
This just came out Monday. I bet Nate won't like it because of the mailing feature. It doesn't nullify it but it weakens it for sure.
Now, back to your poll, junk!
D.
----------------
Question in your poll:
"Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better?"
When a person who is generally positive about the prospects for health care reform reads that, they think "this poll is a ridiculous biased joke" and they toss the half-completed poll in the trash.
When a person who hates the ides of health care reform reads that, they check "yes" with glee and mail it right back.
You can't put a question like that on a mail-in poll without killing the validity of your results. And you can't have been in the polling business for two weeks without knowing the impact it is likely to have."
--Jan Wolter, on 538
Bonus:
"A huge percentage of physicians said they would move out of the business when Medicare was being debated (back in 65). The opposite occurred - medical schools upped their attendance and we had more Doctors. Further, there is no evidence that any left, or if they did, it had no effect.
Scare tactics are just that: tactics."
--Paul K.
***
BLK: "Iran launched a satellite awhile back">>
DAR
Oh my. That is scary. Is that allowed? We have satellites and now they got to put one up too? Somebody should stop them. After all, they're not really humans are they, they're Arabs or Persians or something unknown and scary.
Perhaps Blake can explain why the US should be spending billions in Europe to defend Europe (includes France) from a long range missile threat that doesn’t exist?
No, I didn't think so.
It's all childish 'tit for tat' and we're "caving" by not continuing to annoy a former enemy who is now an ally.
Children in adult bodies.
D.
***
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - Sept)
SEPTEMBER 18, 2009
***
BLK: "[without the] financial incentive to go through the necessary schooling to be a competent physician [US won't have enough Docs]">>
DAR
Apparently the 36 countries that have better, fairer, cheaper, healthcare systems provide enough of this "financial incentive." (And they often pay for most of the schooling).
In fact, in general they usually have more than we do. In the category of doctors per capita, <a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_p ... people">we come in #52</a>.
Nice try though.
D.
***
All that chatter and not a moment spent supporting the main premise:
Again, to show a lie you need:
a) to show the actual claim (you're too lazy to even do this)
b) Show the claim is false
c) Show the person made the claim knowing it was false.
BLK: "John Holdren- (the Science Czar,...), thinks that the government should force people to have abortions and be sterilized..."
DAR
As much noise as you make about lying, a casual observer might think truth was important to you. They would be wrong.
The last time you floated this whopper you admitted you couldn't back it up. I see this hasn't changed. Having investigated the claim myself, I know it to be false. 100% certainty.
You know it's false too, but you don't care.
D.
----------------
"I AM a fair minded, honest intelligent conservative." --Blake, Wednesday Sept 16th, 2009
***
Bigd: "Obama’s pledge to not raise taxes on 95% of the population was a pipe dream.>>
DAR
Wouldn't it be best to wait for that to happen before you claim it? I think so.
Bigd: He already raised them when tobacco taxes were elevated...>>
DAR
Not relevant to "income taxes," as you know.
Bigd: However, there are those who claim he meant income taxes.>>
DAR
Only because he was referring to income taxes. Note:
"Obama has promised that he won’t increase taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 and said he will delay increases for high-income earners until 2011."
--Bloomberg. etc.
Bigd: He said all of our taxes but we can focus on income.>>
DAR
No, when you cite a lowering of taxes based upon income, this is the big shiny clue that you are referring to "income taxes."
And anyway, he has already <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/ ... .html">Cut Taxes for 98.6 Percent of Working* Households**</a>.
D.
--------------------
"I also dropped the bottom rate from fifteen percent to ten percent, because, by far, the vast majority of the help goes to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder."
--G.W. Bush, blatantly fibbing during the first Gore debate. The bottom 60 percent got 14.7 percent. The top one fifth got 71% of the <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=315">tax cuts</a>.
***
[Newsweek said global cooling in the 70's]
DAR
Newsweek is a coffee table news mag, not a peer reviewed scientific journal. And pointing to a single article in a pop news rag is absurd. As I have shown repeatedly:
"A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then."
<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... .html">New Scientist</a>.
<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/short ... ">Detailed here</a>.
See also:
<a href="http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?req ... &ct=1">The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus</a> --American Meteorological Society
Also:
<a href="http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/">Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No</a>.
Etc.
Blake can only play dumb for so long, it became obvious some time ago that he is just dishonest.
D.
***
BLAKE: I believe my post above trumps yours->>
DAR
Well, an important part of becoming an adult is realizing that believing something does not make it so. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
BLK: "we do not have, nor do we want, a socialized system of anything,...">>
DAR
Time for a little rant about something I have put off for far too long. Have a seat little grasshopper.
[Dar cracks knuckles]
Rather than "not having... a socialized system of anything," you swim in a sea of socialism. You are a product of it. You probably fancy yourself a rugged individualist but this is a packaged fantasy someone sold you and you bought it hook line and sinker.
Every piece of glass and rubber down to the fibers in the cloth in every new vehicle requires a government seal of approval. Every aspect of every new vehicle has to follow a litany of government mandates and goes through a battery of government required tests. Brakes, restraints, lights, flammability, crumple zones, air bags, paint, emissions, stability, all regulated and strictly enforced.
Every new window put in a home, every treated board used, every shingle, every water pipe, every light switch, every drop of paint, all made to government enforced, socialized, standards of safety and efficiency.
Every power tool, every appliance, every toy, every battery, every electric cable, every couch, every off road three wheeler (oops, BANNED, can't have those), every off road four wheeler, all made to government enforced, socialized, standards of safety and efficiency.
Firehouses = socialized
Police = socialized
Laws (obviously) = socialized
Courts = socialized
Military = socialized (with private contractors)
Education = almost all socialized and regulated
Health care = at least half socialized and heavily regulated
Pharma = heavily regulated and socialized
Employer and work related rules = heavily regulated/socialized
Banking, commerce, investment, insurance, aviation, fuel manufacture and transport, imports/exports, cable, ALL utilities, wireless, radio bandwidth, TV, broadcast, explosives, agriculture, internet, cross border travel, disease control, child care, all controlled, licensed and enforced by local, state and federal government mandates (socialized).
Almost all municipal aspects, garbage pick-up/disposal and containment, all public water, toxic chemical manufacture and use, factory smoke stacks, building construction, all done to government enforced, that is socialized, mandated standards of safety and efficiency.
Let's start at the beginning. Every baby crib, every disposable diaper, every jar of baby food, every box of cereal, every medicinal treatment, every teddy bear, every pair of pajamas, all made to government mandated, government enforced (socialized), standards of safety.
Every new car, every new house, nearly every item of food purchased at the grocery, every glue product, every motor oil, every cosmetic product (and service) all controlled by government (socialized) standards.
Every medical treatment (with claims of efficacy), every medical device, every pill, every drug, tested, labeled and approved to follow government mandated (socialized) standards of safety and quality.
When you get old, if you move into an assisted care facility, the living conditions and terms will be heavily regulated by our socialized system. When you die (not if), the treatment of your body, how your possessions are dealt with (if intestate, no will), the duration before burial, the place of burial, the manufacture of your casket (or the process of cremation) are all controlled by licenses and government mandated, government enforced (socialized), standards of safety.
That's not all of it, but it's a good start.
So, dear Blake, next time you feel like saying:
"we do not have, nor do we want, a socialized system of anything..."
Please consider the reality of my comments above. You are the product of, and swim in a system, that, while driven and fueled by a thriving private sector, is heavily socialized from top to bottom.
D.
***
Bigd: Social Security will be paying more than it takes in in a few short years>>
DAR
False.
"...variously estimated as 2041 (by the Social Security Administration[84]) or 2052 (by the Congressional Budget Office[85]), the Social Security Trust Fund will have exhausted the claim on general revenues that had been built up during the years of surplus. At that point, current Social Security tax receipts would be sufficient to fund 74 or 78% of the promised benefits, according to the two respective projections."
At that time it will need a tweak. Easy, tax the rich.
Bigd: (something Bush warned about)>>
DAR
Bush tried to loot SS for wall street. He got laughed out of town.
Since Bush then went on to have the worst stock market ever (net loss of 20% v. Clinton gain of 330%), that was an iceberg missed.
Bigd: We have NO money to pay out when the bill finally comes due>>
DAR
A common rookie mistake. Assume all of our debts are owed now. I don't have the money to pay for my home right now, but I will over the years. Same thing with the government.
Bigd: "Medicare is broke. It pays out more than it takes in.>>
DAR
You need to learn the difference between these two things. They are not the same. Medicare is not in place to make money so it is entirely appropriate for it to run surpluses at times and then deficits before it gets adjusted again.
Bigd: They claim it runs efficiently and has a 2 or 3% operating cost.>>
DAR
I have seen considerably higher than that, but bottom-line, it blows the doors of off the private sector for really obvious, really easy to understand reasons. I'll get to these later.
Bigd: based on fuzzy math.>>
DAR
Make all the fuzz you want. It blows away the private sector. Not even close. Your articles are just grossly misleading.
Bigd: "Public figures for Medicare’s administrative costs count only what it takes to print reimbursement checks.">>
DAR
Sorry, your American Spectator source just lost all credibility with that howler.
Bigd: "He said that going to a Medicare like program would cost and additional 90 or 100 BILLION dollars a year.">>
DAR
Not net. You are confused.
Bigd: "he said that the idea that this... He said the reality was it would COST money."
DAR
And of course you don't actually quote him. You just go from memory. I don't trust your memory.
Bigd: "Medicare reimburses at about 62 cents on the dollar">>
DAR
Good. That's too high. Being a doctor shouldn't be a license to be rich. They need caps just like all other utilities and basic services. That's what is coming, some day.
Being rich distracts from the task of healing people and being a doctor. Maybe this is why we have one of the highest medical error rates, they are thinking about their golf games.
Bigd: "Do you like the Postal Service?>>
DAR
Let's ask:
Pollingreport survey, The Postal Service rating:
Favorable.................58%
Somewhat favorable........31%
........................ =89%
So, ah, <a href="http://www.openleft.com/diary/14504/its ... atter">yes, we do.</a>
Bigd: "...they also run a deficit in the billions of dollars."
DAR
What's that, three days in Iraq? Big deal. Their goal is to break even not make money. In an business that large, a couple billion a year is close enough.
Bigd: "[US Postal is] here to stay no matter how poorly they are run.>>
DAR
They are very well run. The US Postal service is top notch, world class. You should be proud of these hard working people, many of them ex-military. STOP bashing America.
Bigd: Do you like the Department of Motor Vehicles?>>
DAR
Love them. I have visited them probably a dozen times in the last three years. We have a nice new building and I have never waited more than five-eight minutes. Usually 2-3. Zero complaints, first class professional service.
Bigd: How about the Passport Office? Ever go there to get a Passport?>>
DAR
Got one this year. Easy as pie, came way ahead of schedule. The only trouble? Dealing with the private business that took the passport photo (Sears). For my wife they screwed it up twice. The government part worked perfectly.
Bigd: IRS, Customs, and just about any other government agency you can name specializes in the run around and expending huge amounts of money.>>
DAR
Always have had a smooth time with IRS and Customs and have dealt with both, recently. Right now am getting the run around by Bank of America (completely screwed up an in house, home re-fi by taking seven months) and Verizon (they think I owe them $2,700 and we have been getting the complete run around for 30 days). Unbelievable. Your private sector big corporation service SUCKS.
Bigd: The TSA is a government agency and look at how it operates.>>
DAR
I have. I have been flying lately and go through their check points in minutes. Like a well oiled machine. Perfect. Top notch. Zero complaints.
Bigd: The idea that government run health care will be a good thing is beyond reason.>>
DAR
Without defining "government run" this really means nothing. Nearly every one of these countries that kick our butts in health care, have private docs and private hospitals, and several even have private insurance too. You need to study up on this.
Bigd: single payer health care. That is the ultimate goal.>>
DAR
In the end, it will be what works. It may take decades and complete fiscal collapse to get there. A good way would be for one sensible state (up north where the IQ's are higher) to make the leap, and then everyone will see how excellent it is, and then it will spread (like gay marriage) everywhere. That's how Canada did it. And then it passed nationally, unanimously. Not a single politician opposed.
It would pass the same way if they voted again today.
D.
***
Obama: "I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.">>
DAR
I would add that people here illegally should have access to affordable quality heath care too. Just not subsidized and not in this plan, as Obama correctly says, thus proving Wilson the liar.
Bigd: "Joe Wilson to shout “you lie” and led to his being punished by the House. Big fricking deal.>>
DAR
Yeah, what was the big deal. You break the house rules, you apologize on the floor. But no, this had to be a big whine fest. It was a pathetic show. They lined up to play a game and make a big deal of him trying to avoid taking personal responsibility for his actions.
I know, when a football player breaks a rule and the flag goes down, we should just wave the rule if he apologizes. Is that what you think?
It's called "personal responsibility" and taking responsibility for one's actions. If you don't like that house rule, change the rule, don't let the rogue get away with breaking it.
D.
--------------
Wilson was choked up in his press conference today. Probably best to have a thread about that since Pelosi's show of emotion was so inappropriate.
***
[quote] "While high-income households did save more in actual dollars than low-income households,">>
DAR
Bingo. Thus proving Bush's claim above, false. Or as Blake would say, that he's a liar.
"The bottom 60 percent got 14.7 percent. The top one fifth got 71% of the tax cuts."
Bigd: "The bottom 40 percent collectively paid no income taxes.">>
DAR
This is terribly misleading because it completely ignores the fact that these people pay vast amounts of payroll taxes which go into general revenue. And the rich receive a huge break on this because of the cap. That should be changed (and probably will). Watch for it.
[quote] "the tax cuts have led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden"
DAR
That's how math works in Heritage spin land. The top 20% get 71% of the tax cuts and this is shouldering more of the burden. Amazing word games. But who could fall for such an obvious ruse? Bigd?
"President Bush’s three tax-cut laws will reduce this year’s income taxes for the richest 1% of taxpayers by an average of $78,460, more than 70 times the average benefit for the middle 20% of taxpayers, congressional analysts found."
--Wall Street Journal, not lying this time, your link
"Fully one-third of President Bush's tax cuts in the last three years have gone to people with the top 1 percent of income,..." --NYT's
That doesn't sound like a tax cut for the rich does it? Sure does.
God I hope Obama hammers the rich. Maybe even make the taxes as high as under Reagan. We've got bills to pay.
And they are finally getting those thousands of republican tax cheats hiding their money with the Swiss. About time. Good job!
Bigd: "The Making Work Pay is not a tax cut, it is a tax credit only applicable to 2009 and 2010.">>
DAR
Don't care. It effectively cuts taxes for 98.6% of working families. Your blind and irrational hatred of all things Obama doesn't even allow you to acknowledge when he cuts taxes. Amazing.
Bigd: "many of whom paid NO taxes.">>
DAR
Every single one of them did. No exceptions.
Bigd: "this will not extend,>>
DAR
Doesn't need to.
Bigd: was designed to offset the economic woes>>
DAR
Excellent.
Bigd: Obama will let the Bush tax cuts expire which will raise taxes on the middle class.>>
DAR
Everyone under $250k gets a cut. Deal with it. Those over, get hammered, but not nearly enough.
As I have shown, the rich made out like bandits in the tax department under Bush (not to mention the huge subsidy to purchase extra heavy SUV's). But in the end, they lost a whole lot of it when his complete ineptitude and policies destroyed the market making tens of trillions disappear. The rich, the poor, the middle, did far better under Clinton.
D.
***
BD: "Fact: Medicare spends more than it takes in.>>
DAR
Fact: You changed your claim. You said they were broke. They aren't broke. Rather than admit that, you moved the goal posts (fallacy).
BD: Fact: VA and Medicare administrative costs are higher than reported>>
DAR
Fact: Costs are FAR less than private sector because of cost controls. This is why no sane person, or even a republican, would suggest converting the VA to private.
BD: Fact: The government is broke.>>
DAR
Not really. We've had much higher debt in the past. And who has been the worst?
"The only presidents to add to the debt since WWII have been Reagan, GHW Bush and GW Bush: http://zfacts.com/p/480.html
"All other presidents since WWII have contributed nothing to the Gross Federal Debt,..."
So let's not pretend like you republicans give a flip about "the debt."
BD: Fact: The only way for government to keep Medicare is to raise taxes because it is out of money.>>
DAR
No, it isn't. As I already referenced. It will be. Tax the rich. Repeat.
Don't like that? Lower costs. This means socialize much more medicine with a "private option." I think people should be able to choose a "private option."
BD: "Government runs NOTHING efficiently."
DAR
I know how the freemarket mantra goes, I just don't believe in cult-like mantras based upon blind faith.
D.
-----------------
"Other Conclusions
Health care costs "pose a serious threat" to the economy, CBO said (USA Today, 12/19). With no changes to the current system, health care spending will account for 25% of the gross domestic product in 2025, compared with 16% in 2007, CBO said (New York Times, 12/19).
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/DAILY_REPO ... R_ID=56186
***
BLK: "Or did they have something called- Gasp!- Personal Responsibility?"
DAR
Having insurance and paying for your risk is "personal responsibility."
Is requiring car insurance "unconstitutional" in your view?
D.
----------------
"Everyone in Japan is required to sign up with a health insurance plan. This is a "personal mandate,".... Every nation that relies on health insurance has that requirement (except the USA), and in Japan the mandate is not controversial at all. "It's considered an element of personal responsibility, that you insure yourself against health care costs," Dr. Ikegami told me. "And who can be against personal responsibility?"
--The Healing of America, pg. 87
***
BLK: "when Republicans break the rules, they are the only ones with the courage to accept responsibility for their actions...">>
DAR
Let's roast that one:
***
"The Democrats asked Joe Wilson to apologize on the House floor for his outburst and he flat out refused.
What happened with Pete Stark?
"...the minority party introduced a resolution of censure, which was killed. Stark ended up doing the right thing and apologizing to the House and President. Wilson is refusing to apologize to the House.
If there is any hypocrisy here, it is on the part of Republicans. They wanted to censure Pete Stark, but couldn’t do it since they were in the minority (remember – elections have consequences). But when it comes to Joe Wilson, they are circling the wagons. They haven’t pushed him to apologize on the House floor, but the Democrats did and he refused.
The Republicans wanted to censure Pete Stark. That’s the second highest level of punishment in the House, with expulsion topping it. For Joe Wilson, the Democrats are wanting a resolution of “disapproval”, which is the most minor disciplinary action in the House – essentially a slap on the wrist."
<a href="http://crooksandliars.com/jamie/wingnut ... g">LINK</a>
***
So, spare me.
D.
***
BLK: And as far as illegals, they need to be shipped back to their country->>
DAR
Okay, you will need a gestapo or SS to go around and do this. Why don't you write to your congressman so he can work to change America into this kind of country that you would like.
BLK: and I know illegals better than you do,>>
DAR
Actually you don't. In addition to working with them (as I have), have you ever been married to one?
BLK: you like to exploit them,>>
DAR
How is it exploitation to rent a property to people who need a place to live? You're not anti-capitalist in addition to being against humans that are different than you are you?
I don't ask about legal status because it's not required. After having several crack head, pregnant wife beating, meth cooking, white trash types, I now specifically look rent to hard working, freedom loving, family raising, cash on time paying, immigrants.
They're the best.
America's strength has long been built upon the backs of these people. In fact, since day one. Get informed.
D.
***
"New CBO estimates show that between 1979 and 2006, average pre-tax income of the top one percent of earners more than tripled, even after accounting for inflation. Their average income went from half a million dollars to $1.7 million even as incomes were basically flat for all households. At the same time, effective federal tax rates for the rich plunged from 37 percent to 31 percent while they barely budged for taxpayers as a whole. Bottom line: after-tax income at the very top increased from $330,000 to $1.2 million."
<a href="http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/ ... l">LINK</a>.
***
BLK: "Holdren never (nor did his co- authors) backed away from the ideas postulated">>
DAR
You lie, like a dog.
***
"[Holdren] was confirmed as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy on March 19, 2009 by a unanimous vote in the Senate. [3][4] [5] He testified to the nomination committee that he does not believe that government should have a role in determining optimal population size [6] and that he has never endorsed forced sterilization.[7][8][7][9]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_holdren
***
BLK: "DID propose putting sterilants in the drinking water, and also putting sterilizing capsules under the skin of people in a forced sterilization scheme.">>
DAR
If this were true (and it isn't true and you know it isn't true), when Holdren testified before the senate that he "has never endorsed forced sterilization" all it would have taken is one senator to stand up and show that he has in fact endorsed this.
But no one did this. There is a reason for this.
Instead, they confirmed him, unanimously.
D.
***
BLK: "The only reason to have government is to provide the services,(police, fire, and military) and infrastructure (roads, etc.) and NO MORE">>
DAR
Nope. Just one more basic necessity. Health care. We can't afford it otherwise. We need strict cost controls, price caps, as we do with so many other things. It's too important to society. The doctors and greed machine will have to get shafted. Take it in the shorts.
BLK: "Once a bureaucracy is created, it NEVER goes away">>
DAR
How soon they forget.
Clinton:
* cut the Federal Workforce by over 200,000 -- on the way to lowest level in 30 years.
* Got rid of 16,000 pages of obsolete regulations...
* Eliminated 284 federal advisory committees.
By 2000:
Smallest Government Workforce Since the 1960's... 375,000 fewer employees in the Federal government workforce than in 1993 -- ...the smallest Federal workforce since the Kennedy Administration.
Lowest Government Spending Since 1974. At 18.7 percent, Federal Government spending as a share of the Gross Domestic Product [was] at its lowest level since 1974.
And what do you have?
"big-government conservatism." The lines on every graph show the same pattern: Government -- whether measured by spending, the deficit, the number of employees, or earmarked appropriations -- expanded through the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush Senior administrations; declined steadily under Clinton; then shot rapidly northward after Republicans took control of the White House in 2001."
<a href="http://www.newamerica.net/publications/ ... 3">LINK</a>.
D.
***
BLK: "States should decide the direction and welfare of their respective citizens">>
DAR
I am fine for making it so states can develop single payer, or something similar, at the individual state level.
Huckabee did it in Arkansas for the kids and it is a great success.
Lot's of states would go for this given the chance. And they would never go back.
D.
***
BLK: "they used an ICBM missile to deliver the satellite->>
DAR
No they didn't. It was a small two stage rocket they built. Russia did this in 1957. Other countries will also. Your country isn't the only country in the world that likes to do things.
BLK: "Eastern Europe... is a buffer zone if missiles come our way>>
DAR
Does your head ever hurt from all of the stupidity bouncing around in there?
D.
***
1) There is a difference between "will" and "are." Learn this difference.
2) The USPS ran billion dollar surpluses in '03, '04 and '05. Lately they have been running minor and insignificant deficits. This doesn't get a "bail out" but rather a price increase paid by users.
3) I provided standard non-partisan references showing estimates for when SS would "run out." They refute Dog's claim and he didn't address this.
BLK: no example you cite has government run anything running in an efficient manner, at or under cost,>>
DAR
Under cost would be in deficit, which you just said you were against. Confused people often contradict themselves.
BLK: Doctors leaving in droves,>>
DAR
Rubbish. With the highest paid doc's we are 52nd in per capita doc's. Nearly all of our peer countries, with systems far more socialized, have more doc's per-capita.
D.
***
VIC: "Then how come do they come here when they can’t get the care they need">>
DAR
Speaking of that:
"Many seek care in Mexico"
The total number making the trip is unclear. But a recent study by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research estimated that nearly 1 million people from California alone seek medical, dental or prescription services in Mexico each year.
Some making the trek have little or no medical coverage. Others like Ritz are on fixed incomes and want to avoid so-called co-pays and deductibles charged by U.S. insurers on top of policies that routinely cost from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand each month."
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/domestic ... 3">LINK</a>
VIC "some of the rich big names from overseas come with their big entourages [to Mayo]">>
DAR
The exceedingly wealthy can indeed afford the US health care, which because of it's size is quite good at some things (especially Mayo which has very collectivist tendencies). Too many tens of millions of Americans, can't afford it. This won't do.
Put me on record as being FOR the "private option." People should at all times be able to choose private insurance and Doc's, as they can in the UK, Germany, Sweden and many other countries (not Canada which needs more private competition in this area IMO).
D.
***
Bigd: "[post office] Another item the government is supposed to do and can’t get right.">>
DAR
Note:
"Independently measured customer satisfaction scores show that 94% of residential customers rated their experience with the Postal Service as excellent, very good, or good."
http://www.usps.com/history/anrpt05/
On what planet is a 94% rating of good to excellent, not getting it "right?"
D.
------------
ps I guarantee that approval rating kicks Canada's butt. Did you know their postal system is so lame, they don't even pick up your to go mail when they drop your mail off? You have to go to the Post Office.
***
BLK: "they have a right to get as much money for their services as the market will bear."
DAR
Well, the market can't bear it anymore. See medicare spending.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Medic ... vg">CBO</a>.
***
Bigd: "He took the decision not to apologize on the House floor>>
DAR
Right. He took the decision not to take personal responsibility for his action by following the house rules and then simply following through with the lightest of taps on the wrist by apologizing to the house. That's not taking responsibility, it's the opposite of it.
Bigd: and accepted the censure."
DAR
a) There was no censure (which is different), there was only a most insignificant "resolution of “disapproval.” The republicans thought it necessary to "censure" Pete Stark, which is "the second highest level of punishment in the House, with expulsion topping it."
b) Accepting or not accepting is not an option so it doesn't mean anything to say he "accepted" something. If he accepted responsibility and the house's direction on this he would have apologized and been done with it.
Unlike Stark, who the republicans thought should be charged with a "censure," Stark took responsibility and apologized for his action. Wilson refused to take responsibility.
D.
------------------
More Wilson commentary (NYT's):
"Mr. Obama didn’t lie. The bills before Congress declare illegal immigrants to be ineligible for subsidized benefits. It is impossible to imagine any final bill doing otherwise. Mr. Wilson was a boor, but some Republicans still insist that he was right because the bill doesn’t ensure that the undocumented have no insurance.
Time for a reality check. Illegal immigrants are here. They are not eligible for Medicaid, but many still get sick and many get care, often in emergency rooms. The current proposals would likely not stop them from using their money to buy coverage through an insurance exchange, without subsidies. Just as they can do now.
Should we take a harder line? Force people to prove citizenship in emergency rooms? That’s illegal, for good reason. Make verification requirements so onerous that not a single illegal immigrant slips through? Very expensive, and not smart. It would be highly likely to snag deserving citizens — like old people who don’t have their original birth certificates. And besides, we’ve tried that: A House oversight committee reviewed six state Medicaid programs in 2007 and found that verification rules had cost the federal government an additional $8.3 million. They caught exactly eight illegal immigrants.
In the case of an epidemic, like swine flu, should illegal immigrants go untreated so they can infect legal residents and American citizens? Hard-line Republicans insist that they will fight for citizenship verification. They could, in theory, get the country to spend whatever it takes to do that and proudly report back to their voters. But there is a line beyond which antipathy to the undocumented can be damaging to those voters’ health, not to mention the federal budget. Mr. Wilson and his admirers seem to have crossed it."
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/opini ... 2">LINK</a>
***
Bigd: "He took the decision not to apologize on the House floor>>
DAR
Right. He took the decision not to take personal responsibility for his action by following the house rules and then simply following through with the lightest of taps on the wrist by apologizing to the house. That's not taking responsibility, it's the opposite of it.
Bigd: and accepted the censure."
DAR
a) There was no censure (which is different), there was only a most insignificant "resolution of “disapproval.” The republicans thought it necessary to "censure" Pete Stark, which is "the second highest level of punishment in the House, with expulsion topping it."
b) Accepting or not accepting is not an option so it doesn't mean anything to say he "accepted" something. If he accepted responsibility and the house's direction on this he would have apologized and been done with it.
Unlike Stark, who the republicans thought should be charged with a "censure," Stark took responsibility and apologized for his action. Wilson refused to take responsibility.
D.
------------------
More Wilson commentary (NYT's):
"Mr. Obama didn’t lie. The bills before Congress declare illegal immigrants to be ineligible for subsidized benefits. It is impossible to imagine any final bill doing otherwise. Mr. Wilson was a boor, but some Republicans still insist that he was right because the bill doesn’t ensure that the undocumented have no insurance.
Time for a reality check. Illegal immigrants are here. They are not eligible for Medicaid, but many still get sick and many get care, often in emergency rooms. The current proposals would likely not stop them from using their money to buy coverage through an insurance exchange, without subsidies. Just as they can do now.
Should we take a harder line? Force people to prove citizenship in emergency rooms? That’s illegal, for good reason. Make verification requirements so onerous that not a single illegal immigrant slips through? Very expensive, and not smart. It would be highly likely to snag deserving citizens — like old people who don’t have their original birth certificates. And besides, we’ve tried that: A House oversight committee reviewed six state Medicaid programs in 2007 and found that verification rules had cost the federal government an additional $8.3 million. They caught exactly eight illegal immigrants.
In the case of an epidemic, like swine flu, should illegal immigrants go untreated so they can infect legal residents and American citizens? Hard-line Republicans insist that they will fight for citizenship verification. They could, in theory, get the country to spend whatever it takes to do that and proudly report back to their voters. But there is a line beyond which antipathy to the undocumented can be damaging to those voters’ health, not to mention the federal budget. Mr. Wilson and his admirers seem to have crossed it."
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/opini ... 2">LINK</a>
***
Bigd: "Yes, I said broke. I did not mean they are bankrupt,>>
DAR
Again with the word games and pretending not to understand grade school definitions.
From dictionary.com:
broke
–verb
4. without money; penniless.
5. bankrupt.
8. go broke,
a. to become destitute of money or possessions.
b. to go bankrupt: In that business people are forever going broke.
Synonyms:
4, 5. insolvent, destitute, impoverished.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/broke
Bigd: "Also, you forgot to add Obama to your names of people who have added to the debt.>>
DAR
He's still operating under a budget shared with Bush. Too early. Considering the train wreck he walked in upon, reasonable people will be giving him quite a break.
Bigd: "You also forgot Clinton and Carter.">>
DAR
No I didn't. They didn't add to the debt. Reference already provided.
Bigd: "I have always railed against adding to the debt.">>
DAR
Republicans do that. Then they blow money like drunken sailors. Usually on wars and subsidies for the rich. Stupid stuff.
Bigd: "VA and Medicare are not less than private. Demonstrated time and again.">>
DAR
Try again:
Overview of VA Cost Methods - How do VA costs compare to the cost of non-VA providers?
Excerpts:
"Comparison of VA Cost to Medicare Reimbursement
The most thorough study comparing the relative cost of VA provided care was an HSR&D study that compared actual VA costs at six VA medical centers to the hypothetical fee-for-service payments for the same services that would have been paid by Medicare. The final report (Nugent, 2004) found that VA was providing care at a lower cost."
[Dar note]: The VA gets it done cheaper than the rates medicare pays.
"CONCLUSIONS: That review finds no convincing evidence that VA has been significantly more or less efficient than nonfederal hospitals in delivering care. However, VA costs do appear to have been significantly lower than fee-for-service charges that the federal government might have to pay if veterans were treated in private sector hospitals for the same diagnoses."
http://www.herc.research.va.gov/resources/faq_b06.asp
D.
***
Bigd: "The top 1% pay about 25%.">>
DAR
According to Michael Moore's new movie:
"The richest 1 percent have more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined."
So why aren't they paying 95% of the taxes?
They've bought the politicians and are ripping us off.
Know what I like about Michael Moore? When he comes out with a documentary (usually recording breaking and always award winning) he backs up all of his claims, line by line, on his website. I don't know anyone else that does that. Then when the lying liars, and BS artists spread their stuff around and go after him, all I have to do is go to his site and check his references. And then I bust them on their lies. Nice.
Oh if I only had a dime for every lie about Michael Moore I have knocked down!
D.
--------------------
CapitalismALoveStory.com
AP: 'Warmly Received' | Variety: 'Returning to His Roots, One of His Best Films' | Time: 'Moore's Magnum Opus' | Bloomberg: 'Scathing, Effective and Hilarious' | The Independent: 'Rousing and Entertaining' | Guardian: 'Tumultuous Applause'
Next week.
***
Gates responds to the dogmatic true believers:
***
"Gates, a Republican who served in senior positions under former President George H.W. Bush and his son, former President George W. Bush, wrote in an opinion article for the New York Times that the criticism of the plan is misguided.
"I believe this is a very pragmatic proposal. I have found since taking this post that when it comes to missile defense, some hold a view bordering on theology that regards any change of plans or any cancellation of a program as abandonment or even breaking faith," Gates said.
The objective of the missile plan is to counter the threat of missile attack from Iran, not Russia.
The Bush plan was intended to intercept long-range Iranian missiles, but Iran has yet to develop long-range missiles and U.S. intelligence recently determined that Tehran is unlikely to have such missiles until between 2015 and 2020.
As a result, Gates changed the plan to counter the possibility of short- and medium-range missiles."
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090920/pl_ ... REUTERS</a>
***
BLK: "Your SS references are outdated">>
DAR
I gave references, you give nothing. IF you give references I will then explain exactly how you are completely misunderstanding the situation anyway. SS will not run out.
BLK: "pay caps only work in government positions.">>
DAR
Think mandated fee caps. Even your cable TV, which is hardly an essential service like health care, has it's fee's regulated. Etc.
D.
***
Bigd: Michael Moore is a [insult].>>
DAR
If you had good arguments/evidence for your claims you would use those rather than appeal to personal attack.
Bigd: Why should the wealthy pay 95% of the taxes>>
DAR
Because they (top 1%) have 95% of the wealth and this wealth is entirely dependent upon the health of the whole system.
Bigd: The tax rate should be equal across the board>>
DAR
Well then they can expect to get hammered even more. If Buffet were taxed at the same rate as his secretary his effective tax hit would almost double. Instead, the rules let the rich hide/shelter the vast majority of their wealth.
That said, the US tax system is, as you point out, rather progressive for the lower income folks. And that's a good thing.
Bigd: Right now 40% of the people can vote and pay nothing>>
DAR
Voting has nothing to do with "paying." See the Constitution.
Apparently what you want is a permanent aristocracy, not a democracy. Congratulations, we're getting pretty close.
But after a while, you get too many poor people and just a few very wealthy people (see that 1%), then the poor rise up and eat the rich.
D.
***
Bigd: "You equate [postal] customer satisfaction with efficiency. That is a mistake.">>
DAR
I am good at getting goals, so you keep moving the goal posts.
D.
----------------
"Moving the goalpost, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded."
***
BLK: "[without the] financial incentive to go through the necessary schooling to be a competent physician [US won't have enough Docs]">>
DAR
Apparently the 36 countries that have better, fairer, cheaper, healthcare systems provide enough of this "financial incentive." (And they often pay for most of the schooling).
In fact, in general they usually have more than we do. In the category of doctors per capita, <a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_p ... people">we come in #52</a>.
Nice try though.
D.
***
All that chatter and not a moment spent supporting the main premise:
Again, to show a lie you need:
a) to show the actual claim (you're too lazy to even do this)
b) Show the claim is false
c) Show the person made the claim knowing it was false.
BLK: "John Holdren- (the Science Czar,...), thinks that the government should force people to have abortions and be sterilized..."
DAR
As much noise as you make about lying, a casual observer might think truth was important to you. They would be wrong.
The last time you floated this whopper you admitted you couldn't back it up. I see this hasn't changed. Having investigated the claim myself, I know it to be false. 100% certainty.
You know it's false too, but you don't care.
D.
----------------
"I AM a fair minded, honest intelligent conservative." --Blake, Wednesday Sept 16th, 2009
***
Bigd: "Obama’s pledge to not raise taxes on 95% of the population was a pipe dream.>>
DAR
Wouldn't it be best to wait for that to happen before you claim it? I think so.
Bigd: He already raised them when tobacco taxes were elevated...>>
DAR
Not relevant to "income taxes," as you know.
Bigd: However, there are those who claim he meant income taxes.>>
DAR
Only because he was referring to income taxes. Note:
"Obama has promised that he won’t increase taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 and said he will delay increases for high-income earners until 2011."
--Bloomberg. etc.
Bigd: He said all of our taxes but we can focus on income.>>
DAR
No, when you cite a lowering of taxes based upon income, this is the big shiny clue that you are referring to "income taxes."
And anyway, he has already <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/ ... .html">Cut Taxes for 98.6 Percent of Working* Households**</a>.
D.
--------------------
"I also dropped the bottom rate from fifteen percent to ten percent, because, by far, the vast majority of the help goes to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder."
--G.W. Bush, blatantly fibbing during the first Gore debate. The bottom 60 percent got 14.7 percent. The top one fifth got 71% of the <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=315">tax cuts</a>.
***
[Newsweek said global cooling in the 70's]
DAR
Newsweek is a coffee table news mag, not a peer reviewed scientific journal. And pointing to a single article in a pop news rag is absurd. As I have shown repeatedly:
"A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then."
<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... .html">New Scientist</a>.
<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/short ... ">Detailed here</a>.
See also:
<a href="http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?req ... &ct=1">The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus</a> --American Meteorological Society
Also:
<a href="http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/">Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No</a>.
Etc.
Blake can only play dumb for so long, it became obvious some time ago that he is just dishonest.
D.
***
BLAKE: I believe my post above trumps yours->>
DAR
Well, an important part of becoming an adult is realizing that believing something does not make it so. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
BLK: "we do not have, nor do we want, a socialized system of anything,...">>
DAR
Time for a little rant about something I have put off for far too long. Have a seat little grasshopper.
[Dar cracks knuckles]
Rather than "not having... a socialized system of anything," you swim in a sea of socialism. You are a product of it. You probably fancy yourself a rugged individualist but this is a packaged fantasy someone sold you and you bought it hook line and sinker.
Every piece of glass and rubber down to the fibers in the cloth in every new vehicle requires a government seal of approval. Every aspect of every new vehicle has to follow a litany of government mandates and goes through a battery of government required tests. Brakes, restraints, lights, flammability, crumple zones, air bags, paint, emissions, stability, all regulated and strictly enforced.
Every new window put in a home, every treated board used, every shingle, every water pipe, every light switch, every drop of paint, all made to government enforced, socialized, standards of safety and efficiency.
Every power tool, every appliance, every toy, every battery, every electric cable, every couch, every off road three wheeler (oops, BANNED, can't have those), every off road four wheeler, all made to government enforced, socialized, standards of safety and efficiency.
Firehouses = socialized
Police = socialized
Laws (obviously) = socialized
Courts = socialized
Military = socialized (with private contractors)
Education = almost all socialized and regulated
Health care = at least half socialized and heavily regulated
Pharma = heavily regulated and socialized
Employer and work related rules = heavily regulated/socialized
Banking, commerce, investment, insurance, aviation, fuel manufacture and transport, imports/exports, cable, ALL utilities, wireless, radio bandwidth, TV, broadcast, explosives, agriculture, internet, cross border travel, disease control, child care, all controlled, licensed and enforced by local, state and federal government mandates (socialized).
Almost all municipal aspects, garbage pick-up/disposal and containment, all public water, toxic chemical manufacture and use, factory smoke stacks, building construction, all done to government enforced, that is socialized, mandated standards of safety and efficiency.
Let's start at the beginning. Every baby crib, every disposable diaper, every jar of baby food, every box of cereal, every medicinal treatment, every teddy bear, every pair of pajamas, all made to government mandated, government enforced (socialized), standards of safety.
Every new car, every new house, nearly every item of food purchased at the grocery, every glue product, every motor oil, every cosmetic product (and service) all controlled by government (socialized) standards.
Every medical treatment (with claims of efficacy), every medical device, every pill, every drug, tested, labeled and approved to follow government mandated (socialized) standards of safety and quality.
When you get old, if you move into an assisted care facility, the living conditions and terms will be heavily regulated by our socialized system. When you die (not if), the treatment of your body, how your possessions are dealt with (if intestate, no will), the duration before burial, the place of burial, the manufacture of your casket (or the process of cremation) are all controlled by licenses and government mandated, government enforced (socialized), standards of safety.
That's not all of it, but it's a good start.
So, dear Blake, next time you feel like saying:
"we do not have, nor do we want, a socialized system of anything..."
Please consider the reality of my comments above. You are the product of, and swim in a system, that, while driven and fueled by a thriving private sector, is heavily socialized from top to bottom.
D.
***
Bigd: Social Security will be paying more than it takes in in a few short years>>
DAR
False.
"...variously estimated as 2041 (by the Social Security Administration[84]) or 2052 (by the Congressional Budget Office[85]), the Social Security Trust Fund will have exhausted the claim on general revenues that had been built up during the years of surplus. At that point, current Social Security tax receipts would be sufficient to fund 74 or 78% of the promised benefits, according to the two respective projections."
At that time it will need a tweak. Easy, tax the rich.
Bigd: (something Bush warned about)>>
DAR
Bush tried to loot SS for wall street. He got laughed out of town.
Since Bush then went on to have the worst stock market ever (net loss of 20% v. Clinton gain of 330%), that was an iceberg missed.
Bigd: We have NO money to pay out when the bill finally comes due>>
DAR
A common rookie mistake. Assume all of our debts are owed now. I don't have the money to pay for my home right now, but I will over the years. Same thing with the government.
Bigd: "Medicare is broke. It pays out more than it takes in.>>
DAR
You need to learn the difference between these two things. They are not the same. Medicare is not in place to make money so it is entirely appropriate for it to run surpluses at times and then deficits before it gets adjusted again.
Bigd: They claim it runs efficiently and has a 2 or 3% operating cost.>>
DAR
I have seen considerably higher than that, but bottom-line, it blows the doors of off the private sector for really obvious, really easy to understand reasons. I'll get to these later.
Bigd: based on fuzzy math.>>
DAR
Make all the fuzz you want. It blows away the private sector. Not even close. Your articles are just grossly misleading.
Bigd: "Public figures for Medicare’s administrative costs count only what it takes to print reimbursement checks.">>
DAR
Sorry, your American Spectator source just lost all credibility with that howler.
Bigd: "He said that going to a Medicare like program would cost and additional 90 or 100 BILLION dollars a year.">>
DAR
Not net. You are confused.
Bigd: "he said that the idea that this... He said the reality was it would COST money."
DAR
And of course you don't actually quote him. You just go from memory. I don't trust your memory.
Bigd: "Medicare reimburses at about 62 cents on the dollar">>
DAR
Good. That's too high. Being a doctor shouldn't be a license to be rich. They need caps just like all other utilities and basic services. That's what is coming, some day.
Being rich distracts from the task of healing people and being a doctor. Maybe this is why we have one of the highest medical error rates, they are thinking about their golf games.
Bigd: "Do you like the Postal Service?>>
DAR
Let's ask:
Pollingreport survey, The Postal Service rating:
Favorable.................58%
Somewhat favorable........31%
........................ =89%
So, ah, <a href="http://www.openleft.com/diary/14504/its ... atter">yes, we do.</a>
Bigd: "...they also run a deficit in the billions of dollars."
DAR
What's that, three days in Iraq? Big deal. Their goal is to break even not make money. In an business that large, a couple billion a year is close enough.
Bigd: "[US Postal is] here to stay no matter how poorly they are run.>>
DAR
They are very well run. The US Postal service is top notch, world class. You should be proud of these hard working people, many of them ex-military. STOP bashing America.
Bigd: Do you like the Department of Motor Vehicles?>>
DAR
Love them. I have visited them probably a dozen times in the last three years. We have a nice new building and I have never waited more than five-eight minutes. Usually 2-3. Zero complaints, first class professional service.
Bigd: How about the Passport Office? Ever go there to get a Passport?>>
DAR
Got one this year. Easy as pie, came way ahead of schedule. The only trouble? Dealing with the private business that took the passport photo (Sears). For my wife they screwed it up twice. The government part worked perfectly.
Bigd: IRS, Customs, and just about any other government agency you can name specializes in the run around and expending huge amounts of money.>>
DAR
Always have had a smooth time with IRS and Customs and have dealt with both, recently. Right now am getting the run around by Bank of America (completely screwed up an in house, home re-fi by taking seven months) and Verizon (they think I owe them $2,700 and we have been getting the complete run around for 30 days). Unbelievable. Your private sector big corporation service SUCKS.
Bigd: The TSA is a government agency and look at how it operates.>>
DAR
I have. I have been flying lately and go through their check points in minutes. Like a well oiled machine. Perfect. Top notch. Zero complaints.
Bigd: The idea that government run health care will be a good thing is beyond reason.>>
DAR
Without defining "government run" this really means nothing. Nearly every one of these countries that kick our butts in health care, have private docs and private hospitals, and several even have private insurance too. You need to study up on this.
Bigd: single payer health care. That is the ultimate goal.>>
DAR
In the end, it will be what works. It may take decades and complete fiscal collapse to get there. A good way would be for one sensible state (up north where the IQ's are higher) to make the leap, and then everyone will see how excellent it is, and then it will spread (like gay marriage) everywhere. That's how Canada did it. And then it passed nationally, unanimously. Not a single politician opposed.
It would pass the same way if they voted again today.
D.
***
Obama: "I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.">>
DAR
I would add that people here illegally should have access to affordable quality heath care too. Just not subsidized and not in this plan, as Obama correctly says, thus proving Wilson the liar.
Bigd: "Joe Wilson to shout “you lie” and led to his being punished by the House. Big fricking deal.>>
DAR
Yeah, what was the big deal. You break the house rules, you apologize on the floor. But no, this had to be a big whine fest. It was a pathetic show. They lined up to play a game and make a big deal of him trying to avoid taking personal responsibility for his actions.
I know, when a football player breaks a rule and the flag goes down, we should just wave the rule if he apologizes. Is that what you think?
It's called "personal responsibility" and taking responsibility for one's actions. If you don't like that house rule, change the rule, don't let the rogue get away with breaking it.
D.
--------------
Wilson was choked up in his press conference today. Probably best to have a thread about that since Pelosi's show of emotion was so inappropriate.
***
[quote] "While high-income households did save more in actual dollars than low-income households,">>
DAR
Bingo. Thus proving Bush's claim above, false. Or as Blake would say, that he's a liar.
"The bottom 60 percent got 14.7 percent. The top one fifth got 71% of the tax cuts."
Bigd: "The bottom 40 percent collectively paid no income taxes.">>
DAR
This is terribly misleading because it completely ignores the fact that these people pay vast amounts of payroll taxes which go into general revenue. And the rich receive a huge break on this because of the cap. That should be changed (and probably will). Watch for it.
[quote] "the tax cuts have led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden"
DAR
That's how math works in Heritage spin land. The top 20% get 71% of the tax cuts and this is shouldering more of the burden. Amazing word games. But who could fall for such an obvious ruse? Bigd?
"President Bush’s three tax-cut laws will reduce this year’s income taxes for the richest 1% of taxpayers by an average of $78,460, more than 70 times the average benefit for the middle 20% of taxpayers, congressional analysts found."
--Wall Street Journal, not lying this time, your link
"Fully one-third of President Bush's tax cuts in the last three years have gone to people with the top 1 percent of income,..." --NYT's
That doesn't sound like a tax cut for the rich does it? Sure does.
God I hope Obama hammers the rich. Maybe even make the taxes as high as under Reagan. We've got bills to pay.
And they are finally getting those thousands of republican tax cheats hiding their money with the Swiss. About time. Good job!
Bigd: "The Making Work Pay is not a tax cut, it is a tax credit only applicable to 2009 and 2010.">>
DAR
Don't care. It effectively cuts taxes for 98.6% of working families. Your blind and irrational hatred of all things Obama doesn't even allow you to acknowledge when he cuts taxes. Amazing.
Bigd: "many of whom paid NO taxes.">>
DAR
Every single one of them did. No exceptions.
Bigd: "this will not extend,>>
DAR
Doesn't need to.
Bigd: was designed to offset the economic woes>>
DAR
Excellent.
Bigd: Obama will let the Bush tax cuts expire which will raise taxes on the middle class.>>
DAR
Everyone under $250k gets a cut. Deal with it. Those over, get hammered, but not nearly enough.
As I have shown, the rich made out like bandits in the tax department under Bush (not to mention the huge subsidy to purchase extra heavy SUV's). But in the end, they lost a whole lot of it when his complete ineptitude and policies destroyed the market making tens of trillions disappear. The rich, the poor, the middle, did far better under Clinton.
D.
***
BD: "Fact: Medicare spends more than it takes in.>>
DAR
Fact: You changed your claim. You said they were broke. They aren't broke. Rather than admit that, you moved the goal posts (fallacy).
BD: Fact: VA and Medicare administrative costs are higher than reported>>
DAR
Fact: Costs are FAR less than private sector because of cost controls. This is why no sane person, or even a republican, would suggest converting the VA to private.
BD: Fact: The government is broke.>>
DAR
Not really. We've had much higher debt in the past. And who has been the worst?
"The only presidents to add to the debt since WWII have been Reagan, GHW Bush and GW Bush: http://zfacts.com/p/480.html
"All other presidents since WWII have contributed nothing to the Gross Federal Debt,..."
So let's not pretend like you republicans give a flip about "the debt."
BD: Fact: The only way for government to keep Medicare is to raise taxes because it is out of money.>>
DAR
No, it isn't. As I already referenced. It will be. Tax the rich. Repeat.
Don't like that? Lower costs. This means socialize much more medicine with a "private option." I think people should be able to choose a "private option."
BD: "Government runs NOTHING efficiently."
DAR
I know how the freemarket mantra goes, I just don't believe in cult-like mantras based upon blind faith.
D.
-----------------
"Other Conclusions
Health care costs "pose a serious threat" to the economy, CBO said (USA Today, 12/19). With no changes to the current system, health care spending will account for 25% of the gross domestic product in 2025, compared with 16% in 2007, CBO said (New York Times, 12/19).
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/DAILY_REPO ... R_ID=56186
***
BLK: "Or did they have something called- Gasp!- Personal Responsibility?"
DAR
Having insurance and paying for your risk is "personal responsibility."
Is requiring car insurance "unconstitutional" in your view?
D.
----------------
"Everyone in Japan is required to sign up with a health insurance plan. This is a "personal mandate,".... Every nation that relies on health insurance has that requirement (except the USA), and in Japan the mandate is not controversial at all. "It's considered an element of personal responsibility, that you insure yourself against health care costs," Dr. Ikegami told me. "And who can be against personal responsibility?"
--The Healing of America, pg. 87
***
BLK: "when Republicans break the rules, they are the only ones with the courage to accept responsibility for their actions...">>
DAR
Let's roast that one:
***
"The Democrats asked Joe Wilson to apologize on the House floor for his outburst and he flat out refused.
What happened with Pete Stark?
"...the minority party introduced a resolution of censure, which was killed. Stark ended up doing the right thing and apologizing to the House and President. Wilson is refusing to apologize to the House.
If there is any hypocrisy here, it is on the part of Republicans. They wanted to censure Pete Stark, but couldn’t do it since they were in the minority (remember – elections have consequences). But when it comes to Joe Wilson, they are circling the wagons. They haven’t pushed him to apologize on the House floor, but the Democrats did and he refused.
The Republicans wanted to censure Pete Stark. That’s the second highest level of punishment in the House, with expulsion topping it. For Joe Wilson, the Democrats are wanting a resolution of “disapproval”, which is the most minor disciplinary action in the House – essentially a slap on the wrist."
<a href="http://crooksandliars.com/jamie/wingnut ... g">LINK</a>
***
So, spare me.
D.
***
BLK: And as far as illegals, they need to be shipped back to their country->>
DAR
Okay, you will need a gestapo or SS to go around and do this. Why don't you write to your congressman so he can work to change America into this kind of country that you would like.
BLK: and I know illegals better than you do,>>
DAR
Actually you don't. In addition to working with them (as I have), have you ever been married to one?
BLK: you like to exploit them,>>
DAR
How is it exploitation to rent a property to people who need a place to live? You're not anti-capitalist in addition to being against humans that are different than you are you?
I don't ask about legal status because it's not required. After having several crack head, pregnant wife beating, meth cooking, white trash types, I now specifically look rent to hard working, freedom loving, family raising, cash on time paying, immigrants.
They're the best.
America's strength has long been built upon the backs of these people. In fact, since day one. Get informed.
D.
***
"New CBO estimates show that between 1979 and 2006, average pre-tax income of the top one percent of earners more than tripled, even after accounting for inflation. Their average income went from half a million dollars to $1.7 million even as incomes were basically flat for all households. At the same time, effective federal tax rates for the rich plunged from 37 percent to 31 percent while they barely budged for taxpayers as a whole. Bottom line: after-tax income at the very top increased from $330,000 to $1.2 million."
<a href="http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/ ... l">LINK</a>.
***
BLK: "Holdren never (nor did his co- authors) backed away from the ideas postulated">>
DAR
You lie, like a dog.
***
"[Holdren] was confirmed as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy on March 19, 2009 by a unanimous vote in the Senate. [3][4] [5] He testified to the nomination committee that he does not believe that government should have a role in determining optimal population size [6] and that he has never endorsed forced sterilization.[7][8][7][9]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_holdren
***
BLK: "DID propose putting sterilants in the drinking water, and also putting sterilizing capsules under the skin of people in a forced sterilization scheme.">>
DAR
If this were true (and it isn't true and you know it isn't true), when Holdren testified before the senate that he "has never endorsed forced sterilization" all it would have taken is one senator to stand up and show that he has in fact endorsed this.
But no one did this. There is a reason for this.
Instead, they confirmed him, unanimously.
D.
***
BLK: "The only reason to have government is to provide the services,(police, fire, and military) and infrastructure (roads, etc.) and NO MORE">>
DAR
Nope. Just one more basic necessity. Health care. We can't afford it otherwise. We need strict cost controls, price caps, as we do with so many other things. It's too important to society. The doctors and greed machine will have to get shafted. Take it in the shorts.
BLK: "Once a bureaucracy is created, it NEVER goes away">>
DAR
How soon they forget.
Clinton:
* cut the Federal Workforce by over 200,000 -- on the way to lowest level in 30 years.
* Got rid of 16,000 pages of obsolete regulations...
* Eliminated 284 federal advisory committees.
By 2000:
Smallest Government Workforce Since the 1960's... 375,000 fewer employees in the Federal government workforce than in 1993 -- ...the smallest Federal workforce since the Kennedy Administration.
Lowest Government Spending Since 1974. At 18.7 percent, Federal Government spending as a share of the Gross Domestic Product [was] at its lowest level since 1974.
And what do you have?
"big-government conservatism." The lines on every graph show the same pattern: Government -- whether measured by spending, the deficit, the number of employees, or earmarked appropriations -- expanded through the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush Senior administrations; declined steadily under Clinton; then shot rapidly northward after Republicans took control of the White House in 2001."
<a href="http://www.newamerica.net/publications/ ... 3">LINK</a>.
D.
***
BLK: "States should decide the direction and welfare of their respective citizens">>
DAR
I am fine for making it so states can develop single payer, or something similar, at the individual state level.
Huckabee did it in Arkansas for the kids and it is a great success.
Lot's of states would go for this given the chance. And they would never go back.
D.
***
BLK: "they used an ICBM missile to deliver the satellite->>
DAR
No they didn't. It was a small two stage rocket they built. Russia did this in 1957. Other countries will also. Your country isn't the only country in the world that likes to do things.
BLK: "Eastern Europe... is a buffer zone if missiles come our way>>
DAR
Does your head ever hurt from all of the stupidity bouncing around in there?
D.
***
1) There is a difference between "will" and "are." Learn this difference.
2) The USPS ran billion dollar surpluses in '03, '04 and '05. Lately they have been running minor and insignificant deficits. This doesn't get a "bail out" but rather a price increase paid by users.
3) I provided standard non-partisan references showing estimates for when SS would "run out." They refute Dog's claim and he didn't address this.
BLK: no example you cite has government run anything running in an efficient manner, at or under cost,>>
DAR
Under cost would be in deficit, which you just said you were against. Confused people often contradict themselves.
BLK: Doctors leaving in droves,>>
DAR
Rubbish. With the highest paid doc's we are 52nd in per capita doc's. Nearly all of our peer countries, with systems far more socialized, have more doc's per-capita.
D.
***
VIC: "Then how come do they come here when they can’t get the care they need">>
DAR
Speaking of that:
"Many seek care in Mexico"
The total number making the trip is unclear. But a recent study by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research estimated that nearly 1 million people from California alone seek medical, dental or prescription services in Mexico each year.
Some making the trek have little or no medical coverage. Others like Ritz are on fixed incomes and want to avoid so-called co-pays and deductibles charged by U.S. insurers on top of policies that routinely cost from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand each month."
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/domestic ... 3">LINK</a>
VIC "some of the rich big names from overseas come with their big entourages [to Mayo]">>
DAR
The exceedingly wealthy can indeed afford the US health care, which because of it's size is quite good at some things (especially Mayo which has very collectivist tendencies). Too many tens of millions of Americans, can't afford it. This won't do.
Put me on record as being FOR the "private option." People should at all times be able to choose private insurance and Doc's, as they can in the UK, Germany, Sweden and many other countries (not Canada which needs more private competition in this area IMO).
D.
***
Bigd: "[post office] Another item the government is supposed to do and can’t get right.">>
DAR
Note:
"Independently measured customer satisfaction scores show that 94% of residential customers rated their experience with the Postal Service as excellent, very good, or good."
http://www.usps.com/history/anrpt05/
On what planet is a 94% rating of good to excellent, not getting it "right?"
D.
------------
ps I guarantee that approval rating kicks Canada's butt. Did you know their postal system is so lame, they don't even pick up your to go mail when they drop your mail off? You have to go to the Post Office.
***
BLK: "they have a right to get as much money for their services as the market will bear."
DAR
Well, the market can't bear it anymore. See medicare spending.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Medic ... vg">CBO</a>.
***
Bigd: "He took the decision not to apologize on the House floor>>
DAR
Right. He took the decision not to take personal responsibility for his action by following the house rules and then simply following through with the lightest of taps on the wrist by apologizing to the house. That's not taking responsibility, it's the opposite of it.
Bigd: and accepted the censure."
DAR
a) There was no censure (which is different), there was only a most insignificant "resolution of “disapproval.” The republicans thought it necessary to "censure" Pete Stark, which is "the second highest level of punishment in the House, with expulsion topping it."
b) Accepting or not accepting is not an option so it doesn't mean anything to say he "accepted" something. If he accepted responsibility and the house's direction on this he would have apologized and been done with it.
Unlike Stark, who the republicans thought should be charged with a "censure," Stark took responsibility and apologized for his action. Wilson refused to take responsibility.
D.
------------------
More Wilson commentary (NYT's):
"Mr. Obama didn’t lie. The bills before Congress declare illegal immigrants to be ineligible for subsidized benefits. It is impossible to imagine any final bill doing otherwise. Mr. Wilson was a boor, but some Republicans still insist that he was right because the bill doesn’t ensure that the undocumented have no insurance.
Time for a reality check. Illegal immigrants are here. They are not eligible for Medicaid, but many still get sick and many get care, often in emergency rooms. The current proposals would likely not stop them from using their money to buy coverage through an insurance exchange, without subsidies. Just as they can do now.
Should we take a harder line? Force people to prove citizenship in emergency rooms? That’s illegal, for good reason. Make verification requirements so onerous that not a single illegal immigrant slips through? Very expensive, and not smart. It would be highly likely to snag deserving citizens — like old people who don’t have their original birth certificates. And besides, we’ve tried that: A House oversight committee reviewed six state Medicaid programs in 2007 and found that verification rules had cost the federal government an additional $8.3 million. They caught exactly eight illegal immigrants.
In the case of an epidemic, like swine flu, should illegal immigrants go untreated so they can infect legal residents and American citizens? Hard-line Republicans insist that they will fight for citizenship verification. They could, in theory, get the country to spend whatever it takes to do that and proudly report back to their voters. But there is a line beyond which antipathy to the undocumented can be damaging to those voters’ health, not to mention the federal budget. Mr. Wilson and his admirers seem to have crossed it."
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/opini ... 2">LINK</a>
***
Bigd: "He took the decision not to apologize on the House floor>>
DAR
Right. He took the decision not to take personal responsibility for his action by following the house rules and then simply following through with the lightest of taps on the wrist by apologizing to the house. That's not taking responsibility, it's the opposite of it.
Bigd: and accepted the censure."
DAR
a) There was no censure (which is different), there was only a most insignificant "resolution of “disapproval.” The republicans thought it necessary to "censure" Pete Stark, which is "the second highest level of punishment in the House, with expulsion topping it."
b) Accepting or not accepting is not an option so it doesn't mean anything to say he "accepted" something. If he accepted responsibility and the house's direction on this he would have apologized and been done with it.
Unlike Stark, who the republicans thought should be charged with a "censure," Stark took responsibility and apologized for his action. Wilson refused to take responsibility.
D.
------------------
More Wilson commentary (NYT's):
"Mr. Obama didn’t lie. The bills before Congress declare illegal immigrants to be ineligible for subsidized benefits. It is impossible to imagine any final bill doing otherwise. Mr. Wilson was a boor, but some Republicans still insist that he was right because the bill doesn’t ensure that the undocumented have no insurance.
Time for a reality check. Illegal immigrants are here. They are not eligible for Medicaid, but many still get sick and many get care, often in emergency rooms. The current proposals would likely not stop them from using their money to buy coverage through an insurance exchange, without subsidies. Just as they can do now.
Should we take a harder line? Force people to prove citizenship in emergency rooms? That’s illegal, for good reason. Make verification requirements so onerous that not a single illegal immigrant slips through? Very expensive, and not smart. It would be highly likely to snag deserving citizens — like old people who don’t have their original birth certificates. And besides, we’ve tried that: A House oversight committee reviewed six state Medicaid programs in 2007 and found that verification rules had cost the federal government an additional $8.3 million. They caught exactly eight illegal immigrants.
In the case of an epidemic, like swine flu, should illegal immigrants go untreated so they can infect legal residents and American citizens? Hard-line Republicans insist that they will fight for citizenship verification. They could, in theory, get the country to spend whatever it takes to do that and proudly report back to their voters. But there is a line beyond which antipathy to the undocumented can be damaging to those voters’ health, not to mention the federal budget. Mr. Wilson and his admirers seem to have crossed it."
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/opini ... 2">LINK</a>
***
Bigd: "Yes, I said broke. I did not mean they are bankrupt,>>
DAR
Again with the word games and pretending not to understand grade school definitions.
From dictionary.com:
broke
–verb
4. without money; penniless.
5. bankrupt.
8. go broke,
a. to become destitute of money or possessions.
b. to go bankrupt: In that business people are forever going broke.
Synonyms:
4, 5. insolvent, destitute, impoverished.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/broke
Bigd: "Also, you forgot to add Obama to your names of people who have added to the debt.>>
DAR
He's still operating under a budget shared with Bush. Too early. Considering the train wreck he walked in upon, reasonable people will be giving him quite a break.
Bigd: "You also forgot Clinton and Carter.">>
DAR
No I didn't. They didn't add to the debt. Reference already provided.
Bigd: "I have always railed against adding to the debt.">>
DAR
Republicans do that. Then they blow money like drunken sailors. Usually on wars and subsidies for the rich. Stupid stuff.
Bigd: "VA and Medicare are not less than private. Demonstrated time and again.">>
DAR
Try again:
Overview of VA Cost Methods - How do VA costs compare to the cost of non-VA providers?
Excerpts:
"Comparison of VA Cost to Medicare Reimbursement
The most thorough study comparing the relative cost of VA provided care was an HSR&D study that compared actual VA costs at six VA medical centers to the hypothetical fee-for-service payments for the same services that would have been paid by Medicare. The final report (Nugent, 2004) found that VA was providing care at a lower cost."
[Dar note]: The VA gets it done cheaper than the rates medicare pays.
"CONCLUSIONS: That review finds no convincing evidence that VA has been significantly more or less efficient than nonfederal hospitals in delivering care. However, VA costs do appear to have been significantly lower than fee-for-service charges that the federal government might have to pay if veterans were treated in private sector hospitals for the same diagnoses."
http://www.herc.research.va.gov/resources/faq_b06.asp
D.
***
Bigd: "The top 1% pay about 25%.">>
DAR
According to Michael Moore's new movie:
"The richest 1 percent have more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined."
So why aren't they paying 95% of the taxes?
They've bought the politicians and are ripping us off.
Know what I like about Michael Moore? When he comes out with a documentary (usually recording breaking and always award winning) he backs up all of his claims, line by line, on his website. I don't know anyone else that does that. Then when the lying liars, and BS artists spread their stuff around and go after him, all I have to do is go to his site and check his references. And then I bust them on their lies. Nice.
Oh if I only had a dime for every lie about Michael Moore I have knocked down!
D.
--------------------
CapitalismALoveStory.com
AP: 'Warmly Received' | Variety: 'Returning to His Roots, One of His Best Films' | Time: 'Moore's Magnum Opus' | Bloomberg: 'Scathing, Effective and Hilarious' | The Independent: 'Rousing and Entertaining' | Guardian: 'Tumultuous Applause'
Next week.
***
Gates responds to the dogmatic true believers:
***
"Gates, a Republican who served in senior positions under former President George H.W. Bush and his son, former President George W. Bush, wrote in an opinion article for the New York Times that the criticism of the plan is misguided.
"I believe this is a very pragmatic proposal. I have found since taking this post that when it comes to missile defense, some hold a view bordering on theology that regards any change of plans or any cancellation of a program as abandonment or even breaking faith," Gates said.
The objective of the missile plan is to counter the threat of missile attack from Iran, not Russia.
The Bush plan was intended to intercept long-range Iranian missiles, but Iran has yet to develop long-range missiles and U.S. intelligence recently determined that Tehran is unlikely to have such missiles until between 2015 and 2020.
As a result, Gates changed the plan to counter the possibility of short- and medium-range missiles."
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090920/pl_ ... REUTERS</a>
***
BLK: "Your SS references are outdated">>
DAR
I gave references, you give nothing. IF you give references I will then explain exactly how you are completely misunderstanding the situation anyway. SS will not run out.
BLK: "pay caps only work in government positions.">>
DAR
Think mandated fee caps. Even your cable TV, which is hardly an essential service like health care, has it's fee's regulated. Etc.
D.
***
Bigd: Michael Moore is a [insult].>>
DAR
If you had good arguments/evidence for your claims you would use those rather than appeal to personal attack.
Bigd: Why should the wealthy pay 95% of the taxes>>
DAR
Because they (top 1%) have 95% of the wealth and this wealth is entirely dependent upon the health of the whole system.
Bigd: The tax rate should be equal across the board>>
DAR
Well then they can expect to get hammered even more. If Buffet were taxed at the same rate as his secretary his effective tax hit would almost double. Instead, the rules let the rich hide/shelter the vast majority of their wealth.
That said, the US tax system is, as you point out, rather progressive for the lower income folks. And that's a good thing.
Bigd: Right now 40% of the people can vote and pay nothing>>
DAR
Voting has nothing to do with "paying." See the Constitution.
Apparently what you want is a permanent aristocracy, not a democracy. Congratulations, we're getting pretty close.
But after a while, you get too many poor people and just a few very wealthy people (see that 1%), then the poor rise up and eat the rich.
D.
***
Bigd: "You equate [postal] customer satisfaction with efficiency. That is a mistake.">>
DAR
I am good at getting goals, so you keep moving the goal posts.
D.
----------------
"Moving the goalpost, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded."
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - Sept)
Darrel, I am slightly encouraged by the improvement I see in your opponents' arguments. Still not great, but at least they're TRYING to provide sources and they're sticking with their arguments (not just calling you a name and running away or deleting your posts). Even if you never change their minds, at least you're getting them to think about how they construct their arguments. Good job!
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - Sept)
DARI am slightly encouraged by the improvement I see in your opponents' arguments.
It's true, Bigd has been trying address some arguments substantively, on good days. On bad days, not so much. The other method wasn't working so well. And to their credit, they have never deleted one of my posts.
Now some fresh roast...
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - Sept)
SEPTEMBER 23, 2009
***
VIC [citing radio show host Mark Levin] "[Hansen] was forced to revise his figures that showed the hottest decade of the twentieth century was not the 1990s but the 1930s">>
DAR
The claim is asinine, yet standard fare for GW deniers who pass around lies without checking their facts.
The '90's were clearly, by far, unquestionably hotter than the 1930's. And our current decade, is hotter still.
No informed GW denier (and there are about four of them) would say something this foolish. Levin is a fool, or he is lying, or both.
D.
------------------
"The climate story of the decade is that the 2000s are on track to be nearly 0.2°C warmer than the 1990s. And that temperature jump is especially worrisome since the 1990s were only 0.14°C warmer than the 1980s (see datasets here). Global warming is accelerating, as predicted." --ibid
***
Bigd: "And the amount of carbon in the atmosphere was many times more than it is now tens of thousands of years ago.">>
DAR
Wrong. I grab wiki here only because this is standard info and it's handy:
"The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since the mid-1700s.[21] These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[22] Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values this high were last seen about 20 million years ago.[23]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
See chart <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna ... .svg">here showing the extraordinary rate of increase</a>.
See also:
2.1 Million-Year High Measured for Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere
June 18 (Bloomberg) -- Carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere has risen to its highest level in at least 2.1 million years, according to a new investigation of the greenhouse gas’s role in ice ages over the millennia."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... 5p2kBin538 --LINK
etc.
***
Bigd: "How about this mild Summer?">>
DAR
The US has had a mild summer, "0.6°F below average, making it the 30th coolest August in the 115-year record."
That's nice, but has nothing to do with climate change which, in fact, refers to the globe.
D.
-------------------
"The globe recorded its second warmest August since record keeping began in 1880, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. NOAA rated the period June - August (summer in the Northern Hemisphere, winter in the Southern Hemisphere) as the third warmest on record, and the year-to-date period, January - August 2009, as the fifth warmest such period on record. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies rated August 2009 as the 6th warmest August on record. The August satellite-measured temperatures for the lower atmosphere were between 7th and 9th warmest on record. According to NOAA, for the third month in a row, the global ocean Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) were the warmest on record. August SSTs were 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average, breaking the previous August record set in 1998. The record August SSTs were due in part to the continuation of El Niño conditions in the Eastern Pacific, which has substantially warmed a large
stretch of the tropical Eastern Pacific Ocean. El Niño conditions are expected to amplify during the coming months, and record or near-record global ocean temperatures will probably continue."
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/
***
Bigd: "Here is a little story discussing the data.">>
DAR
The story is news/fluff garbage based upon debunked disinfo from the "mineral consultant" and mining shill <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... Intyre.</a> None of his material holds up or is taken seriously by anyone in the field of climate science and he has no qualifications (or respect), whatsoever, in the field of climate science.
Try defending his stuff. See what happens. I've been roasting him for years. It's all in stock and ready to go.
Bigd: "I also remember reading how thermometers used to measure are near items"
DAR
This is the Urban Heat Island Effect. <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2 ... Understood and accounted for, read about it, with references, here</a>.
D.
***
ADM: "The planet is cooling lately."
DAR
Not really. See <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/21/d ... 1998/">the references here</a>.:
"In fact, the planet as a whole has warmed since 1998, even in the years when surface temperatures have fallen."
***
Bigd: "The global warming scientists are reversing course one by one.>>
DAR
Actually, they are finding that their previous projections were too conservative and it's worse than they thought. I can bury you in examples or you can get informed yourself.
Bigd: Man is not causing any warming>>
DAR
Not even close; "Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion."
Not one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change
Bigd: I am not willing to spend billions of dollars on...>>
DAR
An entirely different topic from:
a) is the earth rapidly warming (it is)
b) are we largely causing it (we are)
Bigd: "you could not roast a chicken if I gave you the oven."
DAR
This is because if you gave me the oven, the oven wouldn't work.
D.
-----------------------
"A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[87] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003,... none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". --ibid
***
Bigd: [cites] “The observed pattern of warming,...” wrote lead author David Douglas,>>
DAR
Best to not get your climate science information from <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... NewsMax</a>. A far right group patterned after Drudge.
If Mr Douglas would like to have his scientific theories taken seriously he needs to write them up in a paper and have his peers review them just like everyone else. This is called peer review and is a (if not the) cornerstone of science.
Oh, I see he already has. And the result? Note:
A 2007 study by Douglass and coworkers questioned the reliability of 22 of the most commonly used global climate models used by the IPCC to predict accelerated warming in the troposphere.[1] However, a 2008 paper published by a 17-member team led by Ben Santer noted errors in the Douglass study, and found instead that the models and observations were not statistically different. [2]
Bigd: "John Christi from the University of Alabama...">>
DAR
He "is convinced that human activities are one cause of the global warming that has been measured" but he doesn't think green house gases are as strong of a driver as most scientists do. Okay.
Bigd: Maybe this author did not look in the right places>>
DAR
Roasted that long ago. A litany of crap put together 2 1/2 years ago by <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... rano">Marc Morano.</a>.
He was the communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment [he worked] under Senator James Inhofe." Was involved with the swift boat BS artists and a "reporter" for Rush Limbaugh.
So he's a hatchet man who knows nothing about climate science, and doesn't care. Let me know if you would like to defend any of his stuff.
Bigd: "So many differing opinions and you want me to educate myself?">>
DAR
Exactly. Stop reading crap from political hacks who know nothing about the science and are in the employ of propagandists. Look to the best science.
Bigd: "Too many scientists disagree">>
DAR
I already addressed that claim directly, above, and you ignored it.
D.
-----------------
"The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role".
"...the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."
Writing in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Doran and Zimmerman conclude, "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html
***
Bigd: "And then there is this:
Charles Perry, a research hydrologist>>
DAR
Already read it actually. What training does a "hydrologist" have to understand climatology? None. Zero.
Imagine if you were doing some nursing duty and the janitor came over and started to tell you how you were doing you job all wrong.
Bigd: [quote] ...days passed without a sunspot,>>
DAR
And then Perry, the hydrologist, recycles the old sunspot material. Trouble is, he is unqualified to write anything that would be of interest to the people who actually work in this field, because he doesn't know where to begin.
But he sure can fool the regular folk at "investors.com" (that's where I go to get the best science information!). Especially when he tells them something that fits their political bias. The uninformed misinforming the even less informed.
Here is an article written by climatologists on a site that avoids the politics.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... r-forcing/
That's a good start.
D.
***
BLK: Whoops not enough coffee- http://www.geocraft... [GW denier article]>>
DAR
Did you notice it was anonymous? Perhaps if they were confident of their claims they would put their name on it.
I think this is a variation of one of the very first GW denier sites I ever roasted, about five years ago. I recognize the spiral binding template. It was put together by a sea captain with no training or understanding of the issues. Ah the memories.
There is not a claim on that page (or your other links) that I am not familiar with and haven't responded to many times.
Perhaps pick one that you think is convincing and has the best chance of being true and holding up to a little scrutiny (good luck).
Anyone can google a bunch of GW denier material so let's not pretend you have accomplished something, or learned something, or even thought about something simply because you can (after three tries) paste a link.
D.
***
BLK: "I have never seen you say you might be mistaken">>
DAR
I have made many mistakes and admitted to them several times on this forum.
In fact, I made a mistake, and admitted to it, on my very first post.
I wish you would point out more mistakes/errors in my posts, because then I would learn and correct my mistake.
D.
***
As opposed to the hatchet people and hacks you cite?>>
DAR
I refer to climatologists and the very best science (which is all on my side, and entirely against yours). You cite, fluff pieces from "investors.com" and "Newsmax." No, comparison.
Bigd: "you fictitiously roasted it in the past.">>
DAR
Again, I don't make claims I can't back up. If you would like the direct links to the specific roasts in question, just ask. They are but a click away on our freethinker forum where I have posted 4,622 posts. Hundreds of them on this topic.
Bigd: I have linked to many credible scientists...>>
DAR
Marc Morano is not a scientist, but he is a political hack. No one should take what he says seriously on this subject. I am not a climatologist so I refer to the best peer reviewed science, not hacks.
Bigd: In 7 years we will be about the same as we are now,>>
DAR
Right. With record breaking temperatures, less see ice, more bleaching of the ocean from carbon etc, highest C02 levels and less glaciers. We agree.
Get the latest issue of Scientific American. It has a good article on Arctic/Antarctic/Greenland ice melts and sea levels. If you think losing the twin towers was a big financial hit on the US, what do you think Manhattan sloshing around in seawater is going to do?
You really ought to just give up the GW denier position. All the smart ones already ate their crow and moved on. It's like trying to pretend smoking doesn't cause cancer. You just don't have the data and the science with you. You pass along lies, and junk and then it gets spanked. It's embarrassing.
Best to say you just don't care (like gay marriage) and God will sort it out. Or even go with we can't fix it (possible), or won't fix (likely), or can't afford to fix it (possible). But enough with the crappy BS material from people who are simply profoundly misinformed or dishonest or both.
D.
***
Bigd: but you cite Wiki>>
DAR
I don't cite anything from wiki that isn't supported with standard mainstream references. Newsmax is neither.
Feel free to challenge any of my claims, specifically, and I will back them up with additional references.
D.
***
Bigd: did you miss this part of the article?>>
DAR
What article?
Bigd: Mojib Latif of Germany’s Leibniz Institute... acknowledged that the Earth has been cooling and is likely to continue that trend for the next couple of decades>>
DAR
Let's check that. Note:
"It’s pretty clear though that Fred Pearce took Mojib’s words out of context and that is unfortunate. If New Scientist is supposed to be reputable, they should post a correction.
I like the way Mojib wrapped it up in saying: “I’m definitely not one of the skeptics, okay, and if my name was not ‘Mojib Latif’, my name would be ‘Global Warming’.”
His concerns with what the press might do with his words was not unfounded."
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... 7">LINK</a>
More:
***
Latif showed the 20th century variability around a rising trend, and noted that it could happen that temperatures cooled for a decade or even two, and if that happened, people would say global warming had stopped. He did not predict that this would happen over the next decade or two as the article suggests. His comment on needing to “ask the nasty questions ourselves” was in the context of addressing model biases, not in the context of a decadal cooling.
Latif felt the jury was still out as to the relative contribution of internal decadal variability to the recent warming. He went on to discuss the NAO as one of the important internal modes of the climate system exhibiting low-frequency variability. Putting two and two together, Pearce got “NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades”.
In short, in his presentation Latif did suggest — in passing, and very off-hand — that as much as two decades of cooling could happen despite underlying AGW. That would probably upset a few bets. He did not predict “that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans” and that the cooling would be down to changes in the NAO. Nor did he mention that the NAO was moving into a “colder phase”. If anything, his speech was about the difficulties attending such predictions and the need to improve our abilities to make them.>> --ibid
DAR
It's telling that your side is so desperate that they have to jump on any little opportunity to distort and take out of context some little comment an actual scientist makes. Professor Latif is on my side, not yours.
Bigd: So Perry is not qualified?>>
DAR
Correct. He doesn't publish scientific papers on the issue of climatology, because he isn't qualified.
Bigd: when Hydrology is a science that is related to climatology?>>
DAR
A lot of things in science can be made to look as if they are "related." Knowledge is specialized. Perry, the hydrologist, is trying to speak about sunspots and how they effect the earth's climate. Besides clearly speaking out of his area of specialty, he is passing along the same old junk that that has been debunked for years by those who have devoted their lives to studying THIS subject. This is because he doesn't know what he is talking about. This is very common.
Bigd: When respected scientists have something to say you claim they are not qualified.>>
DAR
When they speak outside of the specialty, correct.
Bigd: But Al Gore is no climatologist>>
DAR
Al Gore relies upon the best science, as I do. He should only be taken as seriously to the degree that the science he references is taken seriously.
D.
***
Bigd: You keep knocking sunspots but they are the key.>>
DAR
Show they are "the key."
Why don't you start with this BBC beginner article. It has the top ten claims with nice short rebuttals.
Example:
"Claim: Earth history shows climate has regularly responded to cyclical changes in the Sun's energy output. Any warming we see can be attributed mainly to variations in the Sun's magnetic field and solar wind.
Answer: Solar variations do affect climate, but they are not the only factor. As there has been no positive trend in any solar index since the 1960s (and possibly a small negative trend), solar forcing cannot be responsible for the recent temperature trends. The difference between the solar minimum and solar maximum over the 11-year solar cycle is 10 times smaller than the effect of greenhouse gases over the same interval."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
If you have any questions about their answers I can easily steer you to solid science information backing it up.
D.
***
[wanna bet on GW?]
DAR
Good idea. I am very much for putting my money where my mouth is. We’ll need to work out the deals which would not include NY sloshing around in seven years, something I would never claim. But I tend to consider the longer term consequences of our actions. See the Scientific American article I referred you to. If New York is sloshing around in sea water in 50 years, it’s still a big deal. Even a hundred years.
There have been many attempts to get GW skeptics to place bets backing up their belief that the earth is not warming. Observe the result:
“The list of sceptics who have refused to bet against the IPCC position has grown steadily since then, and now also includes Michaels, Jaworowski, Corbyn, Ebell, Kininmonth, Mashnich and Idso (all my blog posts and related comments are linked from here). While I would be happy to take money off any or all of them, there is more to this than sceptic-bashing and a few high-profile bets – it could also perhaps result in a working market that would generate a true consensus…
Betting on climate change
***
Bigd: "predictions that [Gore] says will come to pass (now in 7 years)?>>
DAR
Let's see the citation you are referring to. Verbatim please, not some interpretation recycled through a reporter's imagination.
Bigd: We need to pick the doomsday predictions of Gore,>>
DAR
I don't know of any doomsday predictions from Gore. Would you like to share one?
Predictions, estimates regarding the extent of the effect of climate change of course vary. I don't spend much time on that since this is something we can't know. What has already happened we can know, and yet, some still try to deny this. Bizarre.
D.
***
BLK: "the 30th coolest August [in US] has nothing to do with climate change."
DAR
Correct.
BLK: Isn’t the United States a part of the globe?>>
DAR
Are Australia and New Zealand part of the globe?
Best to not confuse weather, with climate.
D.
-------------------
"Australia had its warmest August on record in 2009, according to the Australian Bureau of Meteorlogy. Temperatures averaged a remarkable 3.2°C (5.8°F) above average, making August 2009 the most anomalous month ever recorded in Australia. The previous record was set in April 2005, which was 3.1°C (5.6°C) above average... The Australian winter (June-July-August) was the 2nd warmest on record, next to the winter of 1996. New Zealand also experienced its warmest August on record (records go back 155 years)."
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/
***
BLK [quotes] "The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent."
DAR
KRUGMAN responds to this:
"So where do the apocalyptic warnings about the cost of climate-change policy come from?
Are the opponents of cap-and-trade relying on different studies that reach fundamentally different conclusions? No, not really. It’s true that last spring the Heritage Foundation put out a report claiming that Waxman-Markey would lead to huge job losses, but the study seems to have been so obviously absurd that I’ve hardly seen anyone cite it.
Instead, the campaign against saving the planet rests mainly on lies.
Thus, last week Glenn Beck — who seems to be challenging Rush Limbaugh for the role of de facto leader of the G.O.P. — informed his audience of a “buried” Obama administration study showing that Waxman-Markey would actually cost the average family $1,787 per year. Needless to say, no such study exists.
But we shouldn’t be too hard on Mr. Beck. Similar — and similarly false — claims about the cost of Waxman-Markey have been circulated by many supposed experts.
A year ago I would have been shocked by this behavior. But as we’ve already seen in the health care debate, the polarization of our political discourse has forced self-proclaimed “centrists” to choose sides — and many of them have apparently decided that partisan opposition to President Obama trumps any concerns about intellectual honesty.
So here’s the bottom line: The claim that climate legislation will kill the economy deserves the same disdain as the claim that global warming is a hoax. The truth about the economics of climate change is that it’s relatively easy being green."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/opini ... ugman.html
***
BLK: "GB, France, Sweden are all trying to capitalize their system->>
DAR
Sure they are. They look to the US and say "We want THAT."
BLK: Switzerland has a better system, but we do not need to throw the whole system away just for some needed tweaks.>>
DAR
Yes, they do have a better system, as do the other countries you mentioned. As with all of our peer countries, they cover everyone, with better outcomes, for less.
But let's consider the Swiss, since they recently and purposely threw out some of this "capitalization" you speak of. And with good reason. Like our system, it wasn't working.
The Healing of America, pg. 177:
Excerpt:
"In health care,... the equality of society became badly strained near the end of the twentieth century. The Swiss health insurance business was coming to resemble the American system. Traditionally, Switzerland had had a network of "mutual," or nonprofit, health insurance plans; workers brought insurance through their employer. But Switzerland is home to some of the world's largest insurance firms. In the 1980's, these private insurance giants learned a profitable lesson from American insurers. U.S. companies like Aetna and UnitedHealth had been buying up nonprofit health insurers like Blue Cross and Blue Shield and converting them into profit-making operations. As it turned out, for-profit health insurance produced fabulous bottom-line results, especially when the insurers were picky about the people they covered and diligent about denying clams. The big Swiss insurance firms were impressed;they started buying the old mutual health plans in Switzerland
and converting them into profit-making business. By the early 1990's Switzerland's health care system was the closest in the world to the American model. Costs were high--Switzerland ranked second only to the Uniteded States in per-capita spending on health care--and more and more Swiss citizens were being left without insurance. Just as in America, the insurance companies refused to cover anybody with a preexisting condition, on the logical theory that covering sick people would cost more and eat into profits. Even those who had coverage found their claims being denied, because the insurers decided, logically, that every claim they paid would eat into the profits.
It was a fine example of unfettered capitalism at work. But in Switzerland, there was a problem. Even more than it cherishes capitalism and profit, Switzerland cherishes its solidarity. Some Swiss people could afford to see a doctor, others could not. Some people were covered for large medical bills; others faced bankruptcy. By 1993,... about 5 percent of the population had no health insurance coverage. By US standards, of course that would be barely a blip; in 2009, some 16 percent of Americans were living without health insurance. For the Swiss, though, leaving 5 percent of their fellow citizens oustide the health care system was an unacceptable violation of the core national values: solidarity, community, equality.
A special task force was set up to study this national problem.
[result...] Insurance companies were required to offer a basic package of benefits to all applicants, and insurers could not make a profit on basic health coverage (any profits or surplus earnings must be used to reduce premiums for the next year). To soften the impact on the insurance industry, the new law required that everyone buy health insurance; anyone who didn't sign up was automatically assigned to one of the companies, and the premium was deducted from their paycheck... Further insurers were allowed to make a profit on supplemental coverage...
...heated debate, with the for-profit insurance industry, the drug industry, and the most of the rest of the business community fiercely opposed.
The new system went into effect on January 1, 1996.
...a dozen years later, universal health care coverage was so firmly entrenched as an element of Swiss life that nobody seemed to oppose it anymore. Even M. Couchepin, the conservative businessman who became president, agreed. "Nobody would want to go back to the system before, when some people were locked out of the insurance," he told me. "We have a system now that means everybody, rich or poor, can have the best health care we can provide. It is accepted; it is working. We are happy that we made the changes in 1994."
DAR
Sorry if I am more than a little skeptical that the countries you speak of "are all trying to capitalize their system."
D.
------------------
Recommended further reading <a href="viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6079">here</a>.
***
Bigd: "a quote from T R Reid, a [insult]...">>
DAR
Non-responsive, genetic fallacy.
Bigd: "Why do so many people come to America for medical training>>
DAR
We have had some very good schools. The world is catching up. I recommend this presentation I gave some time ago about the state of science education in America, <a href="http://fayfreethinkers.com/powerpoints/ ... t">here</a>.
Bigd: Why would these people want to work here">>
DAR
To make lots of money. Much of which comes through the government. About half of the US medical system is socialized. That's the more efficient half, with lower costs.
D.
----------------
Ph.D. in physical science and engineering...
US citizens receiving Ph.D’s in 1987: 4,700
Asians: 5,600
US citizens receiving Ph.D’s in 2001: 4,400
Asians receiving Ph.D’s in 2001: 24,900
“By 2010, 90 percent of all Ph.D. physical scientists and engineers in the world will be Asian living in Asia.”
--R.E. Smalley, Nobel Prize-winning scientist from Rice University
***
Bigd: "like Michael Moore and his Sicko lies.>>
DAR
Would love to see an example. Big dog got one of those?
D.
-----------------
"Sicko premiered on May 19, 2007 at the 2007 Cannes Film Festival, receiving a 15-minute standing ovation... the third-highest grossing documentary in the USA since 1982"
***
Bigd: "80% of the people are happy with what they have">>
DAR
That's no doubt why:
"...85 percent of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt,"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/healt ... 1poll.html --LINK
Bigd: "Americans have a better survival rate for most of the major diseases and they fair well in most categories.">>
DAR
There's a reason why you never back such claims up and there is a reason why I can and have provided standard mainstream references over and over showing otherwise. Your claim is false. Even Canada, which is mediocre by world standards, beats the US. The US does not come out well in comparisons with our peer countries.
Bigd: "Reform health care with my plans...">>
DAR
You have plans? Anything other than lowering taxes for the extremely wealthy?
Bigd: "No matter what they do, it is unconstitutional.">>
DAR
Is medicare unconstitutional? Is social security unconstitutional? Is the VA medical system unconstitutional?
D.
------------------
"Virtually every step forward in our history has been a liberal initiative taken over conservative opposition: civil rights, Social Security, Medicare, rural electrification, the establishment of a minimum wage, collective bargaining, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and federal aid to education, including the land-grant colleges, to name just a few. Many of these innovations were eventually embraced by conservatives only after it became clear that they had overwhelming public approval for the simple reason that almost every American benefited from them. Every one of these liberal efforts strengthened our democracy and our quality of life. I challenge my conservative friends to name a single federal initiative now generally approved by both of our major parties that was not first put forward by liberals over the opposition of conservatives."
--George McGovern
***
[There will be blood letting at the polls if this health care passes]
DAR
Good point. Nothing makes citizens more angry than having fair and affordable access to health care.
D.
----------------
Republican Popularity Plummeting As They Continue Boarding The Crazy Train.
***
BLK: "T.R. Reid and Moore">>
DAR
Read for comprehension. I didn't quote Moore, Bigd tried to smear my source (rather than respond to the content), by comparing him to Moore. All ad hominem, all fallacy, all the time.
You claimed various Euro countries are moving toward privatization. I provided a specific detailed example of the Swiss recently moving AWAY from that and for reasons stated.
You throw insults and ignore it, and Bigd does the same.
BLK: "Social Security is socialized, and unconstitutional, as is Medicare and Medicaid">>
DAR
Thank you for answering my question.
BLK: "all are broke, in the red,">>
DAR
SS won't be broke for decades. You are confused.
BLK: "Tell me that Canada’s system doesn’t suck [article with anecdote of Canadian waiting a year for something]>>
DAR
I have already shown you it doesn't suck, with extensive reference of scientific studies showing it beats the US, in all main categories of interest to the public, easily.
Your article references an anecdote (we don't have any horror show stories here in the US now do we?) and then says:
"More than 70 private health providers in British Columbia now schedule simple surgeries and tests..."
This is good news. I hope the public system gets some private competition. Canada is too far to the left on this, and a few other issues.
So Canada is dealing with the issue of allowing a crack in the door of the government monopoly. Some are for it, others against it. I hope it makes it but it will be for the public (or the courts) to decide.
Here in the US, you guys wet your pants at the thought of people even having the option of using a government run non-profit.
I have been consistent. The US should have a private option, and so should Canada. Britain does, but very few (about 3%) bother to use it.
Starting with a public option will be fine.
D.
--------------------
<a href="viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6085#p19950">How to talk to Complete Idiots</a>.
***
BLK: "I challenge liberals to name a single government program that has worked as advertised,>>
DAR
Oh, the free market never has products that don't work "as advertised" now does it?
BLK: and pays its own way-">>
DAR
That's easy. They all do. And they're a bargain. Just try changing one, like SS, and see what happens.
Oh wait, already tried that.
And how expensive were "civil rights" anyway? Did we make the bigots pay for it?
D.
-------------------
Here are a few more: guaranteed bank deposits, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Park Service, the National School Lunch Program, the Voting Rights Act, and the graduated income tax. Etc.
***
INON: "The govermnet(sic) does NOT owe everyone health and medical care.">>
DAR
Question: If a child is born in the US, with a serious life threatening disease, and the parents are poor and without insurance, are you saying that if no one else steps forward to help the child, the government, our society, should NOT take action to care for the child?
D.
***
Bigd: "Dems have a lower approval.">>
DAR
Let's see if that's true.
Demo approval <a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm">here</a>, dozens of standard mainstream polls to choose from.
Repub approval <a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm">here</a>, dozens of standard mainstream polls to choose from.
Add them up, average them.
Answer: Not true. Not even close to true. In fact, I don't see them ahead in a single one.
And I'm sooooo surprised.
Why do you say things that aren't true? I don't quite see the point.
D.
------------------
"As the GOP has thrown increasingly bizarre, frenzied, and sometimes racially motivated accusations at Obama, the positive view of the GOP has seen a steady and drastic reduction. In January, 40% of whites held a positive view of the GOP. Today, that figure is 25%. In January, 20% of Latinos held a positive view of the GOP. Today, that figure is 3%. Amongst voters under thirty years of age, that positive view of the GOP has plummeted from 27% to 4%. The two demographics which have seen somewhat steady positive views of the GOP are amongst voters aged 30 to 44 (35% down to 31%), and among southerners (46% down to 41%)."
<a href="http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/200 ... n">LINK</a>.
***
BLK: "Requiring people to buy insurance is indeed unconstitutional,">>
DAR
Question. Is requiring people to:
a) wear seat belts
b) buy car insurance
c) wear helmets on a motorcycle
unconstitutional?
D.
--------------------
Why do I think of you and Bigd when I see this really cute 4 minute video clip?
http://www.wikio.com/video/1710449
***
Bigd: Michael Moore has new movie out and it is a movie that is anti capitalism.>>
DAR
Actually, it's a love story. MM, is a successful capitalist. He just thinks the interests of democracy, the interests of the populace, should trump the interests of capitalism. What a bizarre notion eh?
Why don't you have the intellectual courage to watch a MM movie?
Bigd: Moore adds to his list of distorting films, F911 and Sicko>>
DAR
Still waiting for an example. You like to make charges but you're not so good in the "backing them up" department.
Bigd:(how much money did the anti capitalist make off them),>>
DAR
Hopefully a fair chunk. He was on Stern the other day and said if you didn't count his home, he wouldn't be a millionaire. It's pretty clear that MM's motivations are a sincere love of America and humanity, not making buckets of money.
For too many people, it's the other way around.
Bigd: Moore is in business to make money.>>
DAR
And that's a good thing. But us capitalists should be responsible with how we conduct ourselves. MM is going to give some examples of how some capitalists have not been very responsible. Perhaps you should get the courage to consider these examples?
Bigd: He owns Halliburton and oil company stocks.>>
DAR
And he is/was a member of the NRA too. It's a useful way of keeping an eye on these groups, be a shareholder, if only of a small amount of stock.
Of course you were trying to pass along the canard that he is a hypocrite for this. That's just dumb.
Bigd: Moore also does his post production work in Canada to avoid having to use union workers>>
DAR
Of course you don't have any evidence for that. Like I said, probably everything you believe and have read about MM is false. So it's like many of your other areas of belief. Mountains of rubbish piled here and there. What a mess.
Canada is about 30% unionized.
The US about 12%.
Going to Canada to "avoid union workers" would be a little counter productive wouldn't it?
Bigd: Something tells me that his movie will not include these tid-bits about him.>>
DAR
Why would he include right-wing lies about him? He could devote an entire movie to that but it would be boring since everyone gets to see that all the time for free on the Tee Vee.
D.
--------------------
TIME mag interview:
Q: "But aren't you really a model capitalist? You raise money. You hire people. You create a product and sell it to the public, bearing the risk and gaining the rewards that goes along with it.
MM: Capitalism would have never let me be a filmmaker, living in Flint, Michigan with a high school education. I was going to have to make that happen myself. My last movie, I gave it away for free on the Internet: Slacker Uprising. If I were a capitalist I would not give my employees health insurance with no deductible, which I do, including dental, and paid pregnancy leave. That's not called capitalism, that's called being a Christian and someone who believes in democracy, so that everyone should get a fair slice of the pie."
***
BLK: "There has NEVER been a government run not for profit."
DAR
All government... is not for profit.
D.
------------------
<a href="viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6085#p19950">How to talk to Complete Idiots</a>
***
Bigd: "no obligation for these people to have the care paid for. They have access to health care for the child and it might cost them a fortune.>>
DAR
My question included the information that they didn't have a fortune.
You didn't answer the question, as you know.
Would you like to try again:
Question: If a child is born in the US, with a serious life threatening disease, and the parents are poor and without insurance, are you saying that if no one else steps forward to help the child, the government, our society, should NOT take action to care for the child?
If you would like examples of people dying in the US due to lack of coverage, I have only 18,000 instances per year to refer to.
D.
***
Bigd: "Why should I pay for my care and someone else’s?>>
DAR
We are already doing it and we're paying too much and thousands are dying anyway. System is bloated and busted.
Bigd: I can read about the author [T.R. Reid] and determine he is not exactly unbiased>>
DAR
No one is "exactly unbiased." Reid, as a correspondent, lived for years in India, Canada, Germany, UK, Switzerland etc., and he investigated their medical systems and the history of the development of the medical systems of the world. His book is incredibly informative, understated and fair. You don't know what you are talking about.
Bigd: [can't] assume he would not be unbiased in his current work.>>
DAR
How is this any thing other than 100% genetic fallacy?
Bigd: Perhaps he could go to Mexico>>
DAR
Why should he go to Mexico? Is that a country we should look to as an example? (Unfortunately, there probably are some things we could learn about providing access).
Bigd: The so called scientific studies show little.>>
DAR
Yes, why appeal to science when it is just easier to assert or believe otherwise! Did you learn that in church? I bet you did.
<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... J">Link</a>.
Bigd: American medicine beats other countries hands down.>>
DAR
Hurray! This is great news. I am so glad.
Bigd: Oh, we rank 32nd in a list that bases its rankings on things like...>>
DAR
Actually 37th. Right beside Slovenia.
Bigd: how much we send to other nations>>
DAR
Nope, you made that up. Completely. Note:
"WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs)."
Bigd: and other unmeasurable items like “how do you feel about your health insurance”>>
DAR
Nope, you made that up. No scientific study measures such a thing.
Bigd: If you are injured in the US you have a greater chance at survival.>>
DAR
Nope, let's spank that one again:
"Preventable mortality: The U.S. fell to last place among 19 industrialized nations on mortality amenable to health care—deaths that might have been prevented with timely and effective care. Although the U.S. rate improved by 4 percent between 1997–1998 and 2002–2003 (from 115 to 110 deaths per 100,000), rates improved by 16 percent on average in other nations, leaving the U.S. further behind."
Results from the National Scorecard on U.S. Health System Performance, 2008.
Also: "Up to 101,000 fewer people would die prematurely each year from causes amenable to health care if the U.S. achieved the lower mortality rates of leading countries." --ibid
You should take a moment and read that article carefully. You could learn a lot.
Bigd: 5 year survival rates for most diseases is best in the US.>>
DAR
For breast cancer, and a few others. Any comprehensive study of a broad spectrum of survival rates shows us lagging behind our peers. For well understood and rather sad reasons. Lack of access and preventative care. This is inexcusable.
D.
***
Bigd: F 911 (was free just before the election in 2004 because he wanted Bush to lose) but charged for at theaters.>>
DAR
Where was it "free?" What on earth are you talking about? It was released on June 23, 2004, and it was never "free."
Bigd: "you can make any reference appear how you want it.">>
DAR
I'm a magic man.
Actually, it's called critical thinking and it's where I make references appear as they actually are. When you set aside ideology and devote your self to finding out and believing what is actually true, and then practice over and over, it's just something that naturally happens. You should try it.
Bigd: He had many errors in that movie.>>
DAR
Then you shouldn't have any trouble at all in pointing a couple of them out.
Really, I would like to see one. With all of this noise you people make surely there must be something. I have examined many claims in this regard and have found every single one of them to be false, and usually an astonishing lie.
Perhaps you can do better. I doubt it.
Bigd: "those who do post production in Canada are not union.">>
DAR
Now all you have to do to support your claim is show that he does this post production in Canada for the express purpose avoiding American unions, and not one of any number of other reasons that would have absolutely nothing to do with that. Let me know if you would like a list.
D.
***
BLK: "SS hasn’t been in the black for a long time,">>
DAR
SS won't be out of the black in your lifetime, and probably mine. And that's without changing anything. You don't know what you are talking about.
"...variously estimated as 2041 (by the Social Security Administration[84]) or 2052 (by the Congressional Budget Office[85]), the Social Security Trust Fund will have exhausted the claim on general revenues that had been built up during the years of surplus. At that point, current Social Security tax receipts would be sufficient to fund 74 or 78% of the promised benefits, according to the two respective projections."
SS has almost always run surpluses and...
"Congress invested these surpluses into special series, non-marketable U.S. Treasury securities held by the Social Security Trust Fund. Under the law, the government bonds held by Social Security are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government."
"In 2007, the cumulative excess of Social Security taxes and interest received over benefits paid out stood at $2.2 trillion."
That's a fair chunk of dough. Why that's almost half as much as Bush flushed down Iraq. I think if we can afford to have immoral wars of choice we can afford to take care of the old folks, orphans and widows. WWJD?
BLK: "irretrievably insolvent by 2016- that is not paying its own way.>>
DAR
Irretrievably? SS has done much more than pay it's own way, it's paid for a lot of your favorite wars too.
Soon, because of the decline of the working population we will be paying back on some of those IOU notes the nice folks over at SS have been kind enough to loan us.
Might have to raise some taxes. We've got lots of room for that.
D.
***
***
VIC [citing radio show host Mark Levin] "[Hansen] was forced to revise his figures that showed the hottest decade of the twentieth century was not the 1990s but the 1930s">>
DAR
The claim is asinine, yet standard fare for GW deniers who pass around lies without checking their facts.
The '90's were clearly, by far, unquestionably hotter than the 1930's. And our current decade, is hotter still.
No informed GW denier (and there are about four of them) would say something this foolish. Levin is a fool, or he is lying, or both.
D.
------------------
"The climate story of the decade is that the 2000s are on track to be nearly 0.2°C warmer than the 1990s. And that temperature jump is especially worrisome since the 1990s were only 0.14°C warmer than the 1980s (see datasets here). Global warming is accelerating, as predicted." --ibid
***
Bigd: "And the amount of carbon in the atmosphere was many times more than it is now tens of thousands of years ago.">>
DAR
Wrong. I grab wiki here only because this is standard info and it's handy:
"The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since the mid-1700s.[21] These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[22] Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values this high were last seen about 20 million years ago.[23]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
See chart <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna ... .svg">here showing the extraordinary rate of increase</a>.
See also:
2.1 Million-Year High Measured for Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere
June 18 (Bloomberg) -- Carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere has risen to its highest level in at least 2.1 million years, according to a new investigation of the greenhouse gas’s role in ice ages over the millennia."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... 5p2kBin538 --LINK
etc.
***
Bigd: "How about this mild Summer?">>
DAR
The US has had a mild summer, "0.6°F below average, making it the 30th coolest August in the 115-year record."
That's nice, but has nothing to do with climate change which, in fact, refers to the globe.
D.
-------------------
"The globe recorded its second warmest August since record keeping began in 1880, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. NOAA rated the period June - August (summer in the Northern Hemisphere, winter in the Southern Hemisphere) as the third warmest on record, and the year-to-date period, January - August 2009, as the fifth warmest such period on record. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies rated August 2009 as the 6th warmest August on record. The August satellite-measured temperatures for the lower atmosphere were between 7th and 9th warmest on record. According to NOAA, for the third month in a row, the global ocean Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) were the warmest on record. August SSTs were 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average, breaking the previous August record set in 1998. The record August SSTs were due in part to the continuation of El Niño conditions in the Eastern Pacific, which has substantially warmed a large
stretch of the tropical Eastern Pacific Ocean. El Niño conditions are expected to amplify during the coming months, and record or near-record global ocean temperatures will probably continue."
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/
***
Bigd: "Here is a little story discussing the data.">>
DAR
The story is news/fluff garbage based upon debunked disinfo from the "mineral consultant" and mining shill <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... Intyre.</a> None of his material holds up or is taken seriously by anyone in the field of climate science and he has no qualifications (or respect), whatsoever, in the field of climate science.
Try defending his stuff. See what happens. I've been roasting him for years. It's all in stock and ready to go.
Bigd: "I also remember reading how thermometers used to measure are near items"
DAR
This is the Urban Heat Island Effect. <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2 ... Understood and accounted for, read about it, with references, here</a>.
D.
***
ADM: "The planet is cooling lately."
DAR
Not really. See <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/21/d ... 1998/">the references here</a>.:
"In fact, the planet as a whole has warmed since 1998, even in the years when surface temperatures have fallen."
***
Bigd: "The global warming scientists are reversing course one by one.>>
DAR
Actually, they are finding that their previous projections were too conservative and it's worse than they thought. I can bury you in examples or you can get informed yourself.
Bigd: Man is not causing any warming>>
DAR
Not even close; "Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion."
Not one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change
Bigd: I am not willing to spend billions of dollars on...>>
DAR
An entirely different topic from:
a) is the earth rapidly warming (it is)
b) are we largely causing it (we are)
Bigd: "you could not roast a chicken if I gave you the oven."
DAR
This is because if you gave me the oven, the oven wouldn't work.
D.
-----------------------
"A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[87] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003,... none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". --ibid
***
Bigd: [cites] “The observed pattern of warming,...” wrote lead author David Douglas,>>
DAR
Best to not get your climate science information from <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... NewsMax</a>. A far right group patterned after Drudge.
If Mr Douglas would like to have his scientific theories taken seriously he needs to write them up in a paper and have his peers review them just like everyone else. This is called peer review and is a (if not the) cornerstone of science.
Oh, I see he already has. And the result? Note:
A 2007 study by Douglass and coworkers questioned the reliability of 22 of the most commonly used global climate models used by the IPCC to predict accelerated warming in the troposphere.[1] However, a 2008 paper published by a 17-member team led by Ben Santer noted errors in the Douglass study, and found instead that the models and observations were not statistically different. [2]
Bigd: "John Christi from the University of Alabama...">>
DAR
He "is convinced that human activities are one cause of the global warming that has been measured" but he doesn't think green house gases are as strong of a driver as most scientists do. Okay.
Bigd: Maybe this author did not look in the right places>>
DAR
Roasted that long ago. A litany of crap put together 2 1/2 years ago by <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... rano">Marc Morano.</a>.
He was the communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment [he worked] under Senator James Inhofe." Was involved with the swift boat BS artists and a "reporter" for Rush Limbaugh.
So he's a hatchet man who knows nothing about climate science, and doesn't care. Let me know if you would like to defend any of his stuff.
Bigd: "So many differing opinions and you want me to educate myself?">>
DAR
Exactly. Stop reading crap from political hacks who know nothing about the science and are in the employ of propagandists. Look to the best science.
Bigd: "Too many scientists disagree">>
DAR
I already addressed that claim directly, above, and you ignored it.
D.
-----------------
"The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role".
"...the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."
Writing in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Doran and Zimmerman conclude, "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html
***
Bigd: "And then there is this:
Charles Perry, a research hydrologist>>
DAR
Already read it actually. What training does a "hydrologist" have to understand climatology? None. Zero.
Imagine if you were doing some nursing duty and the janitor came over and started to tell you how you were doing you job all wrong.
Bigd: [quote] ...days passed without a sunspot,>>
DAR
And then Perry, the hydrologist, recycles the old sunspot material. Trouble is, he is unqualified to write anything that would be of interest to the people who actually work in this field, because he doesn't know where to begin.
But he sure can fool the regular folk at "investors.com" (that's where I go to get the best science information!). Especially when he tells them something that fits their political bias. The uninformed misinforming the even less informed.
Here is an article written by climatologists on a site that avoids the politics.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... r-forcing/
That's a good start.
D.
***
BLK: Whoops not enough coffee- http://www.geocraft... [GW denier article]>>
DAR
Did you notice it was anonymous? Perhaps if they were confident of their claims they would put their name on it.
I think this is a variation of one of the very first GW denier sites I ever roasted, about five years ago. I recognize the spiral binding template. It was put together by a sea captain with no training or understanding of the issues. Ah the memories.
There is not a claim on that page (or your other links) that I am not familiar with and haven't responded to many times.
Perhaps pick one that you think is convincing and has the best chance of being true and holding up to a little scrutiny (good luck).
Anyone can google a bunch of GW denier material so let's not pretend you have accomplished something, or learned something, or even thought about something simply because you can (after three tries) paste a link.
D.
***
BLK: "I have never seen you say you might be mistaken">>
DAR
I have made many mistakes and admitted to them several times on this forum.
In fact, I made a mistake, and admitted to it, on my very first post.
I wish you would point out more mistakes/errors in my posts, because then I would learn and correct my mistake.
D.
***
As opposed to the hatchet people and hacks you cite?>>
DAR
I refer to climatologists and the very best science (which is all on my side, and entirely against yours). You cite, fluff pieces from "investors.com" and "Newsmax." No, comparison.
Bigd: "you fictitiously roasted it in the past.">>
DAR
Again, I don't make claims I can't back up. If you would like the direct links to the specific roasts in question, just ask. They are but a click away on our freethinker forum where I have posted 4,622 posts. Hundreds of them on this topic.
Bigd: I have linked to many credible scientists...>>
DAR
Marc Morano is not a scientist, but he is a political hack. No one should take what he says seriously on this subject. I am not a climatologist so I refer to the best peer reviewed science, not hacks.
Bigd: In 7 years we will be about the same as we are now,>>
DAR
Right. With record breaking temperatures, less see ice, more bleaching of the ocean from carbon etc, highest C02 levels and less glaciers. We agree.
Get the latest issue of Scientific American. It has a good article on Arctic/Antarctic/Greenland ice melts and sea levels. If you think losing the twin towers was a big financial hit on the US, what do you think Manhattan sloshing around in seawater is going to do?
You really ought to just give up the GW denier position. All the smart ones already ate their crow and moved on. It's like trying to pretend smoking doesn't cause cancer. You just don't have the data and the science with you. You pass along lies, and junk and then it gets spanked. It's embarrassing.
Best to say you just don't care (like gay marriage) and God will sort it out. Or even go with we can't fix it (possible), or won't fix (likely), or can't afford to fix it (possible). But enough with the crappy BS material from people who are simply profoundly misinformed or dishonest or both.
D.
***
Bigd: but you cite Wiki>>
DAR
I don't cite anything from wiki that isn't supported with standard mainstream references. Newsmax is neither.
Feel free to challenge any of my claims, specifically, and I will back them up with additional references.
D.
***
Bigd: did you miss this part of the article?>>
DAR
What article?
Bigd: Mojib Latif of Germany’s Leibniz Institute... acknowledged that the Earth has been cooling and is likely to continue that trend for the next couple of decades>>
DAR
Let's check that. Note:
"It’s pretty clear though that Fred Pearce took Mojib’s words out of context and that is unfortunate. If New Scientist is supposed to be reputable, they should post a correction.
I like the way Mojib wrapped it up in saying: “I’m definitely not one of the skeptics, okay, and if my name was not ‘Mojib Latif’, my name would be ‘Global Warming’.”
His concerns with what the press might do with his words was not unfounded."
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... 7">LINK</a>
More:
***
Latif showed the 20th century variability around a rising trend, and noted that it could happen that temperatures cooled for a decade or even two, and if that happened, people would say global warming had stopped. He did not predict that this would happen over the next decade or two as the article suggests. His comment on needing to “ask the nasty questions ourselves” was in the context of addressing model biases, not in the context of a decadal cooling.
Latif felt the jury was still out as to the relative contribution of internal decadal variability to the recent warming. He went on to discuss the NAO as one of the important internal modes of the climate system exhibiting low-frequency variability. Putting two and two together, Pearce got “NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades”.
In short, in his presentation Latif did suggest — in passing, and very off-hand — that as much as two decades of cooling could happen despite underlying AGW. That would probably upset a few bets. He did not predict “that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans” and that the cooling would be down to changes in the NAO. Nor did he mention that the NAO was moving into a “colder phase”. If anything, his speech was about the difficulties attending such predictions and the need to improve our abilities to make them.>> --ibid
DAR
It's telling that your side is so desperate that they have to jump on any little opportunity to distort and take out of context some little comment an actual scientist makes. Professor Latif is on my side, not yours.
Bigd: So Perry is not qualified?>>
DAR
Correct. He doesn't publish scientific papers on the issue of climatology, because he isn't qualified.
Bigd: when Hydrology is a science that is related to climatology?>>
DAR
A lot of things in science can be made to look as if they are "related." Knowledge is specialized. Perry, the hydrologist, is trying to speak about sunspots and how they effect the earth's climate. Besides clearly speaking out of his area of specialty, he is passing along the same old junk that that has been debunked for years by those who have devoted their lives to studying THIS subject. This is because he doesn't know what he is talking about. This is very common.
Bigd: When respected scientists have something to say you claim they are not qualified.>>
DAR
When they speak outside of the specialty, correct.
Bigd: But Al Gore is no climatologist>>
DAR
Al Gore relies upon the best science, as I do. He should only be taken as seriously to the degree that the science he references is taken seriously.
D.
***
Bigd: You keep knocking sunspots but they are the key.>>
DAR
Show they are "the key."
Why don't you start with this BBC beginner article. It has the top ten claims with nice short rebuttals.
Example:
"Claim: Earth history shows climate has regularly responded to cyclical changes in the Sun's energy output. Any warming we see can be attributed mainly to variations in the Sun's magnetic field and solar wind.
Answer: Solar variations do affect climate, but they are not the only factor. As there has been no positive trend in any solar index since the 1960s (and possibly a small negative trend), solar forcing cannot be responsible for the recent temperature trends. The difference between the solar minimum and solar maximum over the 11-year solar cycle is 10 times smaller than the effect of greenhouse gases over the same interval."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
If you have any questions about their answers I can easily steer you to solid science information backing it up.
D.
***
[wanna bet on GW?]
DAR
Good idea. I am very much for putting my money where my mouth is. We’ll need to work out the deals which would not include NY sloshing around in seven years, something I would never claim. But I tend to consider the longer term consequences of our actions. See the Scientific American article I referred you to. If New York is sloshing around in sea water in 50 years, it’s still a big deal. Even a hundred years.
There have been many attempts to get GW skeptics to place bets backing up their belief that the earth is not warming. Observe the result:
“The list of sceptics who have refused to bet against the IPCC position has grown steadily since then, and now also includes Michaels, Jaworowski, Corbyn, Ebell, Kininmonth, Mashnich and Idso (all my blog posts and related comments are linked from here). While I would be happy to take money off any or all of them, there is more to this than sceptic-bashing and a few high-profile bets – it could also perhaps result in a working market that would generate a true consensus…
Betting on climate change
***
Bigd: "predictions that [Gore] says will come to pass (now in 7 years)?>>
DAR
Let's see the citation you are referring to. Verbatim please, not some interpretation recycled through a reporter's imagination.
Bigd: We need to pick the doomsday predictions of Gore,>>
DAR
I don't know of any doomsday predictions from Gore. Would you like to share one?
Predictions, estimates regarding the extent of the effect of climate change of course vary. I don't spend much time on that since this is something we can't know. What has already happened we can know, and yet, some still try to deny this. Bizarre.
D.
***
BLK: "the 30th coolest August [in US] has nothing to do with climate change."
DAR
Correct.
BLK: Isn’t the United States a part of the globe?>>
DAR
Are Australia and New Zealand part of the globe?
Best to not confuse weather, with climate.
D.
-------------------
"Australia had its warmest August on record in 2009, according to the Australian Bureau of Meteorlogy. Temperatures averaged a remarkable 3.2°C (5.8°F) above average, making August 2009 the most anomalous month ever recorded in Australia. The previous record was set in April 2005, which was 3.1°C (5.6°C) above average... The Australian winter (June-July-August) was the 2nd warmest on record, next to the winter of 1996. New Zealand also experienced its warmest August on record (records go back 155 years)."
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/
***
BLK [quotes] "The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent."
DAR
KRUGMAN responds to this:
"So where do the apocalyptic warnings about the cost of climate-change policy come from?
Are the opponents of cap-and-trade relying on different studies that reach fundamentally different conclusions? No, not really. It’s true that last spring the Heritage Foundation put out a report claiming that Waxman-Markey would lead to huge job losses, but the study seems to have been so obviously absurd that I’ve hardly seen anyone cite it.
Instead, the campaign against saving the planet rests mainly on lies.
Thus, last week Glenn Beck — who seems to be challenging Rush Limbaugh for the role of de facto leader of the G.O.P. — informed his audience of a “buried” Obama administration study showing that Waxman-Markey would actually cost the average family $1,787 per year. Needless to say, no such study exists.
But we shouldn’t be too hard on Mr. Beck. Similar — and similarly false — claims about the cost of Waxman-Markey have been circulated by many supposed experts.
A year ago I would have been shocked by this behavior. But as we’ve already seen in the health care debate, the polarization of our political discourse has forced self-proclaimed “centrists” to choose sides — and many of them have apparently decided that partisan opposition to President Obama trumps any concerns about intellectual honesty.
So here’s the bottom line: The claim that climate legislation will kill the economy deserves the same disdain as the claim that global warming is a hoax. The truth about the economics of climate change is that it’s relatively easy being green."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/opini ... ugman.html
***
BLK: "GB, France, Sweden are all trying to capitalize their system->>
DAR
Sure they are. They look to the US and say "We want THAT."
BLK: Switzerland has a better system, but we do not need to throw the whole system away just for some needed tweaks.>>
DAR
Yes, they do have a better system, as do the other countries you mentioned. As with all of our peer countries, they cover everyone, with better outcomes, for less.
But let's consider the Swiss, since they recently and purposely threw out some of this "capitalization" you speak of. And with good reason. Like our system, it wasn't working.
The Healing of America, pg. 177:
Excerpt:
"In health care,... the equality of society became badly strained near the end of the twentieth century. The Swiss health insurance business was coming to resemble the American system. Traditionally, Switzerland had had a network of "mutual," or nonprofit, health insurance plans; workers brought insurance through their employer. But Switzerland is home to some of the world's largest insurance firms. In the 1980's, these private insurance giants learned a profitable lesson from American insurers. U.S. companies like Aetna and UnitedHealth had been buying up nonprofit health insurers like Blue Cross and Blue Shield and converting them into profit-making operations. As it turned out, for-profit health insurance produced fabulous bottom-line results, especially when the insurers were picky about the people they covered and diligent about denying clams. The big Swiss insurance firms were impressed;they started buying the old mutual health plans in Switzerland
and converting them into profit-making business. By the early 1990's Switzerland's health care system was the closest in the world to the American model. Costs were high--Switzerland ranked second only to the Uniteded States in per-capita spending on health care--and more and more Swiss citizens were being left without insurance. Just as in America, the insurance companies refused to cover anybody with a preexisting condition, on the logical theory that covering sick people would cost more and eat into profits. Even those who had coverage found their claims being denied, because the insurers decided, logically, that every claim they paid would eat into the profits.
It was a fine example of unfettered capitalism at work. But in Switzerland, there was a problem. Even more than it cherishes capitalism and profit, Switzerland cherishes its solidarity. Some Swiss people could afford to see a doctor, others could not. Some people were covered for large medical bills; others faced bankruptcy. By 1993,... about 5 percent of the population had no health insurance coverage. By US standards, of course that would be barely a blip; in 2009, some 16 percent of Americans were living without health insurance. For the Swiss, though, leaving 5 percent of their fellow citizens oustide the health care system was an unacceptable violation of the core national values: solidarity, community, equality.
A special task force was set up to study this national problem.
[result...] Insurance companies were required to offer a basic package of benefits to all applicants, and insurers could not make a profit on basic health coverage (any profits or surplus earnings must be used to reduce premiums for the next year). To soften the impact on the insurance industry, the new law required that everyone buy health insurance; anyone who didn't sign up was automatically assigned to one of the companies, and the premium was deducted from their paycheck... Further insurers were allowed to make a profit on supplemental coverage...
...heated debate, with the for-profit insurance industry, the drug industry, and the most of the rest of the business community fiercely opposed.
The new system went into effect on January 1, 1996.
...a dozen years later, universal health care coverage was so firmly entrenched as an element of Swiss life that nobody seemed to oppose it anymore. Even M. Couchepin, the conservative businessman who became president, agreed. "Nobody would want to go back to the system before, when some people were locked out of the insurance," he told me. "We have a system now that means everybody, rich or poor, can have the best health care we can provide. It is accepted; it is working. We are happy that we made the changes in 1994."
DAR
Sorry if I am more than a little skeptical that the countries you speak of "are all trying to capitalize their system."
D.
------------------
Recommended further reading <a href="viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6079">here</a>.
***
Bigd: "a quote from T R Reid, a [insult]...">>
DAR
Non-responsive, genetic fallacy.
Bigd: "Why do so many people come to America for medical training>>
DAR
We have had some very good schools. The world is catching up. I recommend this presentation I gave some time ago about the state of science education in America, <a href="http://fayfreethinkers.com/powerpoints/ ... t">here</a>.
Bigd: Why would these people want to work here">>
DAR
To make lots of money. Much of which comes through the government. About half of the US medical system is socialized. That's the more efficient half, with lower costs.
D.
----------------
Ph.D. in physical science and engineering...
US citizens receiving Ph.D’s in 1987: 4,700
Asians: 5,600
US citizens receiving Ph.D’s in 2001: 4,400
Asians receiving Ph.D’s in 2001: 24,900
“By 2010, 90 percent of all Ph.D. physical scientists and engineers in the world will be Asian living in Asia.”
--R.E. Smalley, Nobel Prize-winning scientist from Rice University
***
Bigd: "like Michael Moore and his Sicko lies.>>
DAR
Would love to see an example. Big dog got one of those?
D.
-----------------
"Sicko premiered on May 19, 2007 at the 2007 Cannes Film Festival, receiving a 15-minute standing ovation... the third-highest grossing documentary in the USA since 1982"
***
Bigd: "80% of the people are happy with what they have">>
DAR
That's no doubt why:
"...85 percent of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt,"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/healt ... 1poll.html --LINK
Bigd: "Americans have a better survival rate for most of the major diseases and they fair well in most categories.">>
DAR
There's a reason why you never back such claims up and there is a reason why I can and have provided standard mainstream references over and over showing otherwise. Your claim is false. Even Canada, which is mediocre by world standards, beats the US. The US does not come out well in comparisons with our peer countries.
Bigd: "Reform health care with my plans...">>
DAR
You have plans? Anything other than lowering taxes for the extremely wealthy?
Bigd: "No matter what they do, it is unconstitutional.">>
DAR
Is medicare unconstitutional? Is social security unconstitutional? Is the VA medical system unconstitutional?
D.
------------------
"Virtually every step forward in our history has been a liberal initiative taken over conservative opposition: civil rights, Social Security, Medicare, rural electrification, the establishment of a minimum wage, collective bargaining, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and federal aid to education, including the land-grant colleges, to name just a few. Many of these innovations were eventually embraced by conservatives only after it became clear that they had overwhelming public approval for the simple reason that almost every American benefited from them. Every one of these liberal efforts strengthened our democracy and our quality of life. I challenge my conservative friends to name a single federal initiative now generally approved by both of our major parties that was not first put forward by liberals over the opposition of conservatives."
--George McGovern
***
[There will be blood letting at the polls if this health care passes]
DAR
Good point. Nothing makes citizens more angry than having fair and affordable access to health care.
D.
----------------
Republican Popularity Plummeting As They Continue Boarding The Crazy Train.
***
BLK: "T.R. Reid and Moore">>
DAR
Read for comprehension. I didn't quote Moore, Bigd tried to smear my source (rather than respond to the content), by comparing him to Moore. All ad hominem, all fallacy, all the time.
You claimed various Euro countries are moving toward privatization. I provided a specific detailed example of the Swiss recently moving AWAY from that and for reasons stated.
You throw insults and ignore it, and Bigd does the same.
BLK: "Social Security is socialized, and unconstitutional, as is Medicare and Medicaid">>
DAR
Thank you for answering my question.
BLK: "all are broke, in the red,">>
DAR
SS won't be broke for decades. You are confused.
BLK: "Tell me that Canada’s system doesn’t suck [article with anecdote of Canadian waiting a year for something]>>
DAR
I have already shown you it doesn't suck, with extensive reference of scientific studies showing it beats the US, in all main categories of interest to the public, easily.
Your article references an anecdote (we don't have any horror show stories here in the US now do we?) and then says:
"More than 70 private health providers in British Columbia now schedule simple surgeries and tests..."
This is good news. I hope the public system gets some private competition. Canada is too far to the left on this, and a few other issues.
So Canada is dealing with the issue of allowing a crack in the door of the government monopoly. Some are for it, others against it. I hope it makes it but it will be for the public (or the courts) to decide.
Here in the US, you guys wet your pants at the thought of people even having the option of using a government run non-profit.
I have been consistent. The US should have a private option, and so should Canada. Britain does, but very few (about 3%) bother to use it.
Starting with a public option will be fine.
D.
--------------------
<a href="viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6085#p19950">How to talk to Complete Idiots</a>.
***
BLK: "I challenge liberals to name a single government program that has worked as advertised,>>
DAR
Oh, the free market never has products that don't work "as advertised" now does it?
BLK: and pays its own way-">>
DAR
That's easy. They all do. And they're a bargain. Just try changing one, like SS, and see what happens.
Oh wait, already tried that.
And how expensive were "civil rights" anyway? Did we make the bigots pay for it?
D.
-------------------
Here are a few more: guaranteed bank deposits, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Park Service, the National School Lunch Program, the Voting Rights Act, and the graduated income tax. Etc.
***
INON: "The govermnet(sic) does NOT owe everyone health and medical care.">>
DAR
Question: If a child is born in the US, with a serious life threatening disease, and the parents are poor and without insurance, are you saying that if no one else steps forward to help the child, the government, our society, should NOT take action to care for the child?
D.
***
Bigd: "Dems have a lower approval.">>
DAR
Let's see if that's true.
Demo approval <a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm">here</a>, dozens of standard mainstream polls to choose from.
Repub approval <a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm">here</a>, dozens of standard mainstream polls to choose from.
Add them up, average them.
Answer: Not true. Not even close to true. In fact, I don't see them ahead in a single one.
And I'm sooooo surprised.
Why do you say things that aren't true? I don't quite see the point.
D.
------------------
"As the GOP has thrown increasingly bizarre, frenzied, and sometimes racially motivated accusations at Obama, the positive view of the GOP has seen a steady and drastic reduction. In January, 40% of whites held a positive view of the GOP. Today, that figure is 25%. In January, 20% of Latinos held a positive view of the GOP. Today, that figure is 3%. Amongst voters under thirty years of age, that positive view of the GOP has plummeted from 27% to 4%. The two demographics which have seen somewhat steady positive views of the GOP are amongst voters aged 30 to 44 (35% down to 31%), and among southerners (46% down to 41%)."
<a href="http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/200 ... n">LINK</a>.
***
BLK: "Requiring people to buy insurance is indeed unconstitutional,">>
DAR
Question. Is requiring people to:
a) wear seat belts
b) buy car insurance
c) wear helmets on a motorcycle
unconstitutional?
D.
--------------------
Why do I think of you and Bigd when I see this really cute 4 minute video clip?
http://www.wikio.com/video/1710449
***
Bigd: Michael Moore has new movie out and it is a movie that is anti capitalism.>>
DAR
Actually, it's a love story. MM, is a successful capitalist. He just thinks the interests of democracy, the interests of the populace, should trump the interests of capitalism. What a bizarre notion eh?
Why don't you have the intellectual courage to watch a MM movie?
Bigd: Moore adds to his list of distorting films, F911 and Sicko>>
DAR
Still waiting for an example. You like to make charges but you're not so good in the "backing them up" department.
Bigd:(how much money did the anti capitalist make off them),>>
DAR
Hopefully a fair chunk. He was on Stern the other day and said if you didn't count his home, he wouldn't be a millionaire. It's pretty clear that MM's motivations are a sincere love of America and humanity, not making buckets of money.
For too many people, it's the other way around.
Bigd: Moore is in business to make money.>>
DAR
And that's a good thing. But us capitalists should be responsible with how we conduct ourselves. MM is going to give some examples of how some capitalists have not been very responsible. Perhaps you should get the courage to consider these examples?
Bigd: He owns Halliburton and oil company stocks.>>
DAR
And he is/was a member of the NRA too. It's a useful way of keeping an eye on these groups, be a shareholder, if only of a small amount of stock.
Of course you were trying to pass along the canard that he is a hypocrite for this. That's just dumb.
Bigd: Moore also does his post production work in Canada to avoid having to use union workers>>
DAR
Of course you don't have any evidence for that. Like I said, probably everything you believe and have read about MM is false. So it's like many of your other areas of belief. Mountains of rubbish piled here and there. What a mess.
Canada is about 30% unionized.
The US about 12%.
Going to Canada to "avoid union workers" would be a little counter productive wouldn't it?
Bigd: Something tells me that his movie will not include these tid-bits about him.>>
DAR
Why would he include right-wing lies about him? He could devote an entire movie to that but it would be boring since everyone gets to see that all the time for free on the Tee Vee.
D.
--------------------
TIME mag interview:
Q: "But aren't you really a model capitalist? You raise money. You hire people. You create a product and sell it to the public, bearing the risk and gaining the rewards that goes along with it.
MM: Capitalism would have never let me be a filmmaker, living in Flint, Michigan with a high school education. I was going to have to make that happen myself. My last movie, I gave it away for free on the Internet: Slacker Uprising. If I were a capitalist I would not give my employees health insurance with no deductible, which I do, including dental, and paid pregnancy leave. That's not called capitalism, that's called being a Christian and someone who believes in democracy, so that everyone should get a fair slice of the pie."
***
BLK: "There has NEVER been a government run not for profit."
DAR
All government... is not for profit.
D.
------------------
<a href="viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6085#p19950">How to talk to Complete Idiots</a>
***
Bigd: "no obligation for these people to have the care paid for. They have access to health care for the child and it might cost them a fortune.>>
DAR
My question included the information that they didn't have a fortune.
You didn't answer the question, as you know.
Would you like to try again:
Question: If a child is born in the US, with a serious life threatening disease, and the parents are poor and without insurance, are you saying that if no one else steps forward to help the child, the government, our society, should NOT take action to care for the child?
If you would like examples of people dying in the US due to lack of coverage, I have only 18,000 instances per year to refer to.
D.
***
Bigd: "Why should I pay for my care and someone else’s?>>
DAR
We are already doing it and we're paying too much and thousands are dying anyway. System is bloated and busted.
Bigd: I can read about the author [T.R. Reid] and determine he is not exactly unbiased>>
DAR
No one is "exactly unbiased." Reid, as a correspondent, lived for years in India, Canada, Germany, UK, Switzerland etc., and he investigated their medical systems and the history of the development of the medical systems of the world. His book is incredibly informative, understated and fair. You don't know what you are talking about.
Bigd: [can't] assume he would not be unbiased in his current work.>>
DAR
How is this any thing other than 100% genetic fallacy?
Bigd: Perhaps he could go to Mexico>>
DAR
Why should he go to Mexico? Is that a country we should look to as an example? (Unfortunately, there probably are some things we could learn about providing access).
Bigd: The so called scientific studies show little.>>
DAR
Yes, why appeal to science when it is just easier to assert or believe otherwise! Did you learn that in church? I bet you did.
<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... J">Link</a>.
Bigd: American medicine beats other countries hands down.>>
DAR
Hurray! This is great news. I am so glad.
Bigd: Oh, we rank 32nd in a list that bases its rankings on things like...>>
DAR
Actually 37th. Right beside Slovenia.
Bigd: how much we send to other nations>>
DAR
Nope, you made that up. Completely. Note:
"WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs)."
Bigd: and other unmeasurable items like “how do you feel about your health insurance”>>
DAR
Nope, you made that up. No scientific study measures such a thing.
Bigd: If you are injured in the US you have a greater chance at survival.>>
DAR
Nope, let's spank that one again:
"Preventable mortality: The U.S. fell to last place among 19 industrialized nations on mortality amenable to health care—deaths that might have been prevented with timely and effective care. Although the U.S. rate improved by 4 percent between 1997–1998 and 2002–2003 (from 115 to 110 deaths per 100,000), rates improved by 16 percent on average in other nations, leaving the U.S. further behind."
Results from the National Scorecard on U.S. Health System Performance, 2008.
Also: "Up to 101,000 fewer people would die prematurely each year from causes amenable to health care if the U.S. achieved the lower mortality rates of leading countries." --ibid
You should take a moment and read that article carefully. You could learn a lot.
Bigd: 5 year survival rates for most diseases is best in the US.>>
DAR
For breast cancer, and a few others. Any comprehensive study of a broad spectrum of survival rates shows us lagging behind our peers. For well understood and rather sad reasons. Lack of access and preventative care. This is inexcusable.
D.
***
Bigd: F 911 (was free just before the election in 2004 because he wanted Bush to lose) but charged for at theaters.>>
DAR
Where was it "free?" What on earth are you talking about? It was released on June 23, 2004, and it was never "free."
Bigd: "you can make any reference appear how you want it.">>
DAR
I'm a magic man.
Actually, it's called critical thinking and it's where I make references appear as they actually are. When you set aside ideology and devote your self to finding out and believing what is actually true, and then practice over and over, it's just something that naturally happens. You should try it.
Bigd: He had many errors in that movie.>>
DAR
Then you shouldn't have any trouble at all in pointing a couple of them out.
Really, I would like to see one. With all of this noise you people make surely there must be something. I have examined many claims in this regard and have found every single one of them to be false, and usually an astonishing lie.
Perhaps you can do better. I doubt it.
Bigd: "those who do post production in Canada are not union.">>
DAR
Now all you have to do to support your claim is show that he does this post production in Canada for the express purpose avoiding American unions, and not one of any number of other reasons that would have absolutely nothing to do with that. Let me know if you would like a list.
D.
***
BLK: "SS hasn’t been in the black for a long time,">>
DAR
SS won't be out of the black in your lifetime, and probably mine. And that's without changing anything. You don't know what you are talking about.
"...variously estimated as 2041 (by the Social Security Administration[84]) or 2052 (by the Congressional Budget Office[85]), the Social Security Trust Fund will have exhausted the claim on general revenues that had been built up during the years of surplus. At that point, current Social Security tax receipts would be sufficient to fund 74 or 78% of the promised benefits, according to the two respective projections."
SS has almost always run surpluses and...
"Congress invested these surpluses into special series, non-marketable U.S. Treasury securities held by the Social Security Trust Fund. Under the law, the government bonds held by Social Security are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government."
"In 2007, the cumulative excess of Social Security taxes and interest received over benefits paid out stood at $2.2 trillion."
That's a fair chunk of dough. Why that's almost half as much as Bush flushed down Iraq. I think if we can afford to have immoral wars of choice we can afford to take care of the old folks, orphans and widows. WWJD?
BLK: "irretrievably insolvent by 2016- that is not paying its own way.>>
DAR
Irretrievably? SS has done much more than pay it's own way, it's paid for a lot of your favorite wars too.
Soon, because of the decline of the working population we will be paying back on some of those IOU notes the nice folks over at SS have been kind enough to loan us.
Might have to raise some taxes. We've got lots of room for that.
D.
***
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - Sept)
good one! heh.Darrel wrote: Bigd: "you could not roast a chicken if I gave you the oven."
DAR
This is because if you gave me the oven, the oven wouldn't work.
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - Sept)
SEPTEMBER 28, 2009
***
Bigd: "I think they are film makers.">>
DAR
That's a duck. I didn't ask their vocation. You said MM is a higher paid version "of the two who went after ACORN."
What do you think of their conduct? And a follow up: why the double standard?
Bigd: "The difference is that they did not splice and edit things to present a lie.">>
DAR
Oh really? And you know this how? Did they include all the film from the places they went to and got turned away? Nope.
But what they got was damning enough. And incidentally, I quite approve.
Although, now, big surprise, we find the fellow was lying about his funding.
"James O'Keefe,... has repeatedly said that he is "absolutely independent" and received no outside funding to make his films.
But the Voice has learned that O'Keefe, in fact, has had heavyweight conservative backers who funded the young filmmaker as recently as a few months before his ACORN films were made."
<a href="http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninsca ... p">LINK</a>.
***
Bigd: "Is this an accurate portrayal of what took place in the film or is it a lie. Can you defend this as true?>>
DAR
Yes, and yes.
You made the claim that he made many errors. It's not clear what you are claiming is an error. I guess you just want to throw something out there and have me to do the work of knocking down something you haven't even bother to set up.
As I said, MM is careful to reference, in great detail, all of the major claims in his movies. This makes it much easier to knock down the nonsense that people invariably throw at him.
See below.
D.
-----------------
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Fox was the first network to call Florida for Bush. Before that, some other networks had called Florida for Gore, and they changed after Fox called it for Bush.
* “With information provided from the Voter News Service, NBC was the first network to project Gore the winner in Florida at 7:48 pm. At 7:50 pm ,CNN and CBS project Gore the winner in Florida as well.” By 8:02 pm , all five networks and the Associated Press had called Gore the winner in Florida. Even the VNS called Gore the winner at 7:52 pm. At 2:16 am, Fox calls Florida for Bush, NBC follows at 2:16 am. ABC is the last network to call the Florida for Bush, at 2:20 am, while AP and VNS never call Florida for Bush. CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/sto ... rt/cnn.pdf
* Ten minutes after the top of the hour, network excitement was again beginning to build. At 2:16 a.m., the call was made: Fox News Channel, with Bush's first cousin John Ellis running its election desk, was the first to project Florida -- and the presidency -- for the Texas governor. Within minutes, the other networks followed suit. "George Bush, Governor of Texas will become the 43rd President of the United States," CNN's Bernard Shaw announced atop a graphic montage of a smiling Bush. "At 18 minutes past two o'clock Eastern time, CNN declares that George Walker Bush has won Florida's 25 electoral votes and this should put him over the top."PBS: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/elect ... night.html
DAR
You started with number one. If you want to save yourself some time, go here and go through the list of references backing up his claims:
<a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films ... >MM.com</a>
It's long.
***
DAR
Regarding splicing, there was no need. The material that was not damning to ACORN, the material that would have made them look good (when the workers turned them away), is never shown.
Bigd: "No double standard."
DAR
Of course double standard. YOU said Moore is: "...is a higher paid version of the two who went after ACORN.”
You are saying their tactics are the same (and they are) yet YOU like one and vilify the other. Biased, double, standard according to your own words.
Bigd: "Moore... used archive footage of public officials">>
DAR
Yes he did. And this matters why?
Bigd: "They just happen to be more honest."
DAR
Your still trying to land a glove on MM. We'll see how that goes.
Was O'Keefe "more honest" when he said he received no outside funding to make his film, and now we find he actually received 30 thousand dollars?
On what right-wing planet is that "more honest?"
D.
***
Bigd: "you guys attack the two who made the films and defend ACORN.
DAR
Not true.
With regard to O'Keefe's action (which is as you say a lower paid version of MM), I said above:
"And incidentally, I quite approve."
With regard to ACORN, they're great. They do a lot of good work. The amount of money they receive from the government is tiny. Any organization of this size is going to have bad apples. Fire them. Clean house. Do more stings.
D.
***
Bigd: "I did answer the question by pointing out the numerous hospitals that give free care to such people.">>
DAR
That doesn't answer the question. Would you like to try again:
Question: If a child is born in the US, with a serious life threatening disease, and the parents are poor and without insurance, are you saying that if no one else steps forward to help the child, the government, our society, should NOT take action to care for the child?
Yes, or no.
Now, if you would like to put the burden on hospitals, do THEY have an obligation to provide free care?
Are you going to duck that one too?
Why is it that in the wealthiest country in the world, when people (or their children) get sick, and they don't have insurance, or enough insurance (that's 25 million) they have to go around BEGGING and then hope for the best?
Bigd: "18,000 is certainly a number that could be on health care the government already pays for.">>
DAR
Well then why are they dying? And if this is true, why are you opposed to having a government program if it's just a formal version of what "the government already pays for?"
Bigd: "100,000 Canadians per year die while waiting">>
DAR
My claim of 18k is from the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific organization in the US. Extremely conservative in their claims and exhaustively thorough. They don't make stuff up, it doesn't get any better than this.
And this came out a few days ago:
<a href="http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... /">Harvard Medical Study Links Lack of Insurance to 45,000 U.S. Deaths a Year</a>
I have several others, with higher numbers, which I have less confidence in.
In contrast, your claim, is unreferenced.
That's because it's the product of someone's bottom.
Just for fun I did some checking. Your gateway pundit spin site is the only place on the planet making that claim. If there were any merit to it whatsoever, and there is none, it would be everywhere. Especially in Canada. It's utter garbage.
D.
------------------
From a lecture I gave:
Canada has had wait times for some procedures that have been too long. In 2007 Canada had a conference about this and is spending $4.5 billion to address this. This is being carefully measured and tracked by hospital by hospital. Currently, for non-urgent care:
“The median wait time in Canada to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 89.5% waiting less than 3 months.” --<a href="http://www.healthcoalition.ca/index-eng.pdf">LINK pdf</a>
"The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is two weeks with 86.4% waiting less than 3 months.” --ibid
“The median wait time for surgery is four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 3 months.” --ibid
***
Bigd: "all the video clips are real clips, and nothing he says is, narrowly speaking, false.">>
DAR
So your source agrees with me. You really could have made your post much shorter.
Bigd: "MM is trying to deceive people into believing that Bush stole this election>>
DAR
He did steal the election.
Bigd: with the help of Fox and a relative.>>
DAR
His relative at FOX did what he could.
---
F 911: The man who was in charge of the decision desk at FOX on election night was Bush’s first cousin, John Ellis.
* “John Ellis, a first cousin of George W. Bush, ran the network's ‘decision desk’ during the 2000 election, and Fox was the first to name Bush the winner. Earlier, Ellis had made six phone calls to Cousin Bush during the vote-counting.” William O’Rourke, “Talk Radio Key to GOP Victory,” Chicago Sun-Times, December 3, 2002.
* A Fox News consultant, John Ellis, who made judgments about presidential ‘calls’ on Election Night admits he was in touch with George W. Bush and FL Gov. Jeb Bush by telephone several times during the night, but denies breaking any rules. CNN, November 14, 2000; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/
11/14/politics/main249357.shtml.
* John Ellis, the Fox consultant who called Florida early for George Bush, had to stop writing about the campaign for the Boston Globe because of family ‘loyalty’ to Bush. CBS News, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/
11/14/politics/main249357.shtml,
November 14, 2000. --MM, ibid
DAR
So of all of the examples of errors you could throw at MM, you choose to go with these tiny nuances of a disputed timeline (as if CBS wouldn't be covering their bottom on this if they had followed FOX, and who cares anyway) and in the end, after all of the blather and opinion, YOUR cut and paste source says:
"all the video clips are real clips, and nothing he says is, narrowly speaking, false."
Got anything better? Something substantive?
Bigd: "the issue of Saudis leaving the country"
DAR
Make your case. Be specific in quoting MM's claims accurately rather than paraphrasing a movie you haven't seen. We'll see how it holds up.
D.
***
Bigd: He made it look like Bush was saying that the elitists are his base when he was at the dinner.>>
DAR
He "made it look?" That's what Bush said, verbatim. Are you on glue?
Bush and Gore do NY:
"Bush gazed around the diamond-studded $800-a-plate crowd and commented on the wealth on display.
"This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores," quipped the GOP standard-bearer. "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/ ... ml">CBS</a>.
Bigd: "he manipulates the facts to show what he wants people to believe"
DAR
He has an opinion and he uses the medium of film to give his opinion. You don't like his opinion. Some times he is sloppy (but not nearly as sloppy as you). Sometimes his opinion, in my opinion, is petty and stupid (blaming K-Mart for legally selling bullets which were used to kill someone, is petty and stupid).
But I am not so concerned with opinion. Let's see if you can show a substantive factual error.
D.
***
Bigd: I don’t believe they [the UN] do good work.>>
DAR
Then you have left stepped outside of the reality based community where the rest of us reside.
Very abbreviated list of: UNITED NATIONS ACCOMPLISHMENTS
1. Deploying more than 35 peace-keeping missions. There are presently 16 active peace-keeping forces in operation.
2. Credited with negotiating 172 peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts
3. The UN has enabled people in over 45 countries to participate in free and fair elections
5. UNICEF spends more than $800 million a year, primarily on immunization, health care, nutrition and basic education in 138 countries.
6. UN Human Rights Commission has focused world attention on cases of torture, disappearance, and arbitrary detention and has generated international pressure.
8. Has helped minimize the threat of a nuclear war by inspecting nuclear reactors in 90 [countries].
11. The UN was a major factor in bringing about the downfall of the apartheid system.
12. More than 30 million refugees fleeing war, famine or persecution have received aid from the UN.
13. Aiding Palestinian Refugees with free schooling, essential health care, relief assistance and key social services... 2.9 million refugees...
14. Alleviating Chronic Hunger and Rural Poverty in Developing Countries, providing credit that has benefited over 230 million people in nearly 100 developing countries.
17. Providing Safe Drinking Water Available to 1.3 billion people in rural areas during the last decade.
18. Eradicating Smallpox through vaccinations and monitoring. Helped wipe out polio from the Western Hemisphere,...
19. Pressing for Universal Immunization of polio, tetanus...[etc] saving the lives of more than 3 million children each year.
20. Reducing child mortality rates, halved since 1960,...
21. Fighting parasitic diseases, such as saving the lives of 7 million children from going blind from the river blindness
See another 33 examples here:
http://www.una-usadanecounty.org/about/ ... ry_id=1550
D.
----------------------
As to the cost:
"It's a bureaucracy certainly, but not huge," says former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The annual core [UN] functions cost about $1.25 billion, or she says, "roughly what the Pentagon spends every 32 hours." -- http://tinyurl.com/tii9
***
[Who said “I can see Russia from my house?”]
DAR
Tina Fey, a comedian turning up the volume ever so slightly on some bit of idiocy from Palin.
Speaking of McCain, you did notice that Beck said the other day:
"I think John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama,..."
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/2 ... l">Link<a/>
D.
***
Bigd: Bush did not steal the election. All post counts analysis shows he won.>>
DAR
FAHRENHEIT 9/11 claimed: Gore got the most votes in 2000.
* [A] consortium [Tribune Co., owner of the Times; Associated Press; CNN; the New York Times; the Palm Beach Post; the St. Petersburg Times; the Wall Street Journal; and the Washington Post] hired the NORC [National Opinion Research Center, a nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the University of Chicago] to view each untallied ballot and gather information about how it was marked. The media organizations then used computers to sort and tabulate votes, based on varying scenarios that had been raised during the post-election scramble in Florida. Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Mr. Gore erased Mr. Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes. Donald Lambro, “Recount Provides No Firm Answers,” Washington Times, November 12, 2001.
* “The review found that the result would have been different if every canvassing board in every county had examined every undervote, a situation that no election or court authority had ordered. Gore had called for such a statewide manual recount if Bush would agree, but Bush rejected the idea and there was no mechanism in place to conduct one.” Martin Merzer, “Review of Ballots Finds Bush's Win Would Have Endured Manual Recount,” Miami Herald, April 4, 2001.
* See also, the following article by one of the Washington Post journalists who ran the consortium recount. The relevant point is made in Table I of the article. http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
Bigd: MM lies, plain and simple.>>
DAR
Show this. Your source says: "nothing he says is, narrowly speaking, false.”
How are you gonna squeeze a lie out of that. Remember to show: a,b,c.
If you guys restrained yourselves to only posting stuff that was, narrowly speaking, NOT false, it would make your posts much shorter!
Bigd: "if I had it [copy of MM's movie] I would make a bunch of copies and give them away.">>
DAR
So you have no trouble with breaking the law and doing things that are illegal when it suits your purposes. Nice.
D.
***
DAR
You said: "I don’t believe they do good work."
They do. In fact, they do tremendous work, more good work than any organization on the planet, and for a pittance.
Sometimes when I hear such ignorance I wonder why the US should have the honor of being the host nation for this organization that has done so much to improve the world. Then I realize that your silly, ignorance based opinions are from a noisy yet diminishing minority within a noisy yet diminishing party.
D.
--------------
#17. Providing Safe Drinking Water Available to 1.3 billion people in rural areas during the last decade.
***
[what about when the violence and hatred was directed at George Bush?]
DAR
Bush, being the worst president of modern times if not all time was certainly hated (still is). And with good reason. So this is understandable.
But threats of violence?
People who have no arguments and no intellectual support for their beliefs are quick to have tantrums and threaten violence. This blog is a perfect example of that.
Any examples of the left acting like this toward Bush? Today:
"Newsmax: Military Coup Would Take Care Of "Obama Problem"
<a href="http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/ ... e">Link</a>.
Traitors.
D.
***
So rather than admit his mistake, Bigd moves the goal posts from:
"All post counts analysis shows he [Bush] won.>>
To: "The post analysis shows that Bush had a lead in all other instances."
Nice. And if I spank that one, he just makes up a new set of goal posts. Repeat. Boring.
Bush, the illegitimate president, is such spilt milk.
Bigd: "Moore is a liar">>
DAR
Raising the bar? Good. Let's see you show one of those puppies. Remember your abc's.
D.
***
[Franken didn't win the election]
DAR
What a load. I watched that one very closely because I really like Franken and sent him money several times.
Let's review some of the basics:
"The results were certified by each county's canvassing board and then on November 18, 2008, by the Minnesota State Canvassing Board."
"Of the five Canvassing Board members, Ritchie was an elected DFLer, the two justices were appointed by a Republican governor, one judge was appointed by an Independence Party governor, and one was elected in a non-partisan election."
"The state canvassing board certified the recounted vote totals on January 5 with Franken ahead by 225 votes."
"Coleman’s appeal of the panel's decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court was unanimously rejected."
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... 8">etc.</a>
Coleman, a genuinely stupid person, is such spilt, sour, stinking, milk. Franken will be Senator for decades.
D.
------------------
“Most of us here in the media are what I consider infotainers.... Rush Limbaugh is what I call a disinfotainer. He entertains by spreading disinformation.”
--Al Franken at the White House Correspondents' Dinner (4/23/94)
***
Bigd: "I like how you call it Palin idiocy as if she is stupid or something.>>
DAR
Of course she's stupid. She was running for the gig of being back up for president and she couldn't refer to a single supreme court case that she knew of. She couldn't refer to a single news periodical she reads. She is an idiot on stilts. She is an intellectual joke, a farce. When Tina Fey did an award winning performance making Palin look like a fool, she simply read Palin's comments from an interview... verbatim.
Bigd: If only the women in your life were as accomplished.">>
DAR
Unlike Palin, my wife wouldn't quit her job half way through, and she easily has a higher approval rating than Palin.
Favorable: 34%
Unfavorable: 55%
Unsure: 11%
<a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/p.htm">pollingreport</a>.
D.
***
Bigd: Bush the worst? Not a chance.>>
DAR
<a href="http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html">61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst"</a>.
"In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success." --ibid
Bigd: Carter is easily worse>>
DAR
Objective measurement of standard categories of presidential success show, since WWII, Carter is squarely in the middle beating your Nixon, Eisenhower and beating the pants off of both papa Bush and baby Bush *handily.*
<a href="http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_da_ ... >Forbes</a>.
That's fifth place out of eleven. Only two republicans, out of six, beat him.
Bigd: "for you to say it is understandable for Bush to be threatened?>>
DAR
But I didn't say that. Set the glue bottle aside for a moment. I said, as anyone who can read can see, that it is understandable for Bush to be "HATED."
Bigd: advocating hurting him is not something I would ever say was understandable.>>
DAR
It's not understandable? You don't understand it when Obama gets threats at four times the rate Bush did, from people who hold similar positions to yours?
D.
---------------
"How do they train themselves to be so impervious to reality? It begins, I suspect, with religion. They are taught from a young age that it is good to have "faith" -- which is, by definition, a belief without any evidence to back it up. You don't have "faith" Australia exists, or fire burns: you have evidence. You only need "faith" to believe the untrue or unprovable. Indeed, they are taught that faith is the highest aspiration and most noble cause. Is it any surprise this then percolates into their political views? Faith-based thinking spreads and contaminates the rational."
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-ha ... .html">The Republican Party Is Turning Into A Cult</a>.
Turning into?
***
[Now the Obama, the human cost of war is no longer an issue.]
DAR
No one associates these wars with Obama. They are Bush's babies. He pooped the bed and Obama is doing clean up as best as can be expected under the circumstances. Iraq withdrawal is running ahead of schedule, Afghanistan, the quagmire by which all quagmires are judged, is probably going to have to be let go sooner or later.
D.
------------
"I'm not the expert on how the Iraqi people think, because I live in America, where it's nice and safe and secure."
—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 23, 2004
***
So you've change your tune from:
"SS hasn’t been in the black for a long time, and it will be completely, irretrievably insolvent by 2016"
To...
"by 2037, will be doing so, UNSUSTAINABLY">>
DAR
Well that's what matters isn't it? It's not quite right to say someone is broke when they have over 2 trillion in the bank. I suppose you are improving. 2037 is an estimate btw, and it's actually quite a ways away don't ya think?
A little tweak here and there, raise taxes on the rich a little, cut some of their deductions a bit, it'll be fine. Plus, by then, we'll be passed the baby boomer thing, whites will only be five years away from being a minority and as for the ever shrinking republican base... the Christians...
"Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year.
If this trend continues, then: By about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S."
<a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_p ... m">Link</a>.
D.
***
Bigd: "It is not the responsibility of government to provide this service.">>
DAR
Thank you for answering the question.
D.
--------------
"Over the weekend, thousands of Texans attended what is being called the “largest free clinic ever held in the United States” to get health care they otherwise could not afford. ABC-13, a local Houston station, reported that the event showed that there is an “epidemic” of people without proper health coverage in Texas....
Dr. Mehmet Oz, one of the physicians who worked at the clinic this weekend, compared what he saw there to the post-Katrina crisis:
DR. OZ: "We had no idea the overwhelming response we would have, the cries for help from the city of Houston and the state of Texas….This is the largest health mobilization in Houston since Katrina. So a national disaster which brought out this kind of response is now paralleled by a national disaster, because this is just an average day in Houston, and there are thousands of people who need help."
<a href="http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/hea ... t">LINK</a>.
And the world watches in amazement as the wealthiest country in the world can't provide health care for all of it's citizens.
***
Bigd: "45,000 a year is an insignificant number statistically...">>
DAR
45,000 is a line of dead bodies laying end to end extending for 45 miles, every year.
Since these are preventable deaths, due to lack of medical access, in the wealthiest country in the world, this is in no sense "insignificant."
Were the 58,000+ American deaths in Vietnam "statistically insignificant?"
D.
***
[Polanski, liberal pedophile]
DAR
Hey, Fair, I'll see your Polanski and raise you 60 leading republican child humpers.
What's your excuse for this?
"Republican Offenders dot com" has produced a list of 272 Republicans charged with criminal activity, 60 of which are pedophiles (just 1998-2008). Each name is linked to a group heading of the type of crime. (Among the categories are rape, bribery and "assorted felonies".)
http://www.republicanoffenders.com/
D.
***
[Democratic pedophiles in our midst]
DAR
Well, they are especially in YOUR midst.
Republican leadership, just the pedophiles, 60 of them:
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
D.
***
[You don’t get to suddently say Bush pooped anything here concerning Afghanistan.]
DAR
Of course I do. He let Bin Laden get away in Torra Borra, and then he took the emphasis off of Afghanistan (which was the right war) to waste time lives and treasure on a pet project attacking a country that didn't threaten the US (the wrong war).
D.
***
BLK: "horribly, insane liberal screeds that twist the facts into something that doesn’t even remotely resemble common sense.">>
DAR
This is Blake describing that nest of lefties I cited over at... "Forbes."
It's not possible to make fun of this, so I won't.
D.
***
[You used this graph before and I “roasted” it then.]
DAR
Actually you didn't. Perhaps you forgot. It uses standard objective measurements of what we judge presidents and prosperity by:
GDP Rank
Real Disposable Personal Income Rank
Employment Rank
Unemployment Rank
Inflation Rank
Deficit Reduction Rank
If you don't like these, give me some others. You don't like these because, well, no reasons really, you just don't like the result.
Every indicator under Clinton improved, and nearly every indicator under Bush, became worse. But that's cherry picking the best against the very worst.
Aside from your emotional non-rational feelings, Carter's performance was in the middle, and he beats all of your republicans except two (out of six).
That's just the way it is.
D.
***
[Franken is a failed comedian!]
DAR
Failed? Are we talking about the same person?
Or are you just lying again?
Nevermind.
D.
-------------
ps. The word "failed" and Franken don't really go well together. Watch:
"Franken received seven Emmy nominations and three Emmy Awards for his television writing and production.
Franken is the author of five New York Times best-selling books, three of which reached #1
Franken was presented with the USO's Merit Award for his 10 years of service to the organization through visiting injured and deployed service members.
Franken was sworn in to the Senate on Tuesday, July 7, 2009."
Truth hurts when you are devoted to lies.
<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Franken">wiki</a>.
***
Bigd: There are plenty of items we could use to measure [presidents]>>
DAR
Obviously. But these are normal objective measurements of presidential success. You don't like the results for emotional reasons.
Bigd: "Carter was a failure with high inflation"
DAR
As of course accounted for in this chart. He came in tenth in that category.
Here is another examination:
"Presidential rankings according to 65 historians and professional observers of the presidency surveyed by the cable channel C-SPAN. Participants ranked each president by 10 leadership attributes."
http://www.c-span.org/presidentialsurve ... nking.aspx
Carter comes in 25th out of all presidents.
You bias against him is not based on reason but rather emotion.
D.
----------
"American Gross Domestic Product has grown nearly three times as fast under Democrats as Republicans. Since 1930, the annual mean growth in real GDP under Republican Presidents has been 1.8 percent; under Democrats, 5.1 percent."
<a href="http://hnn.us/articles/8301.html">George Mason’s University, History News Network</a>.
***
Bigd: "but none of them are awards for being a great COMEDIAN.>>
DAR
Note to Bigd, all of Franken's books, including the three NYT's #1 best sellers, are filled with comedy, because they were written by a very successful, comedian.
Also, his "seven Emmy nominations and three Emmy Awards for his television writing and production," are, contrary to what you claim, indeed awards for his ability to write COMEDY.
You have been listening to Bill O'Lielly's lies too much.
After having what is by any reasonable measurement a very successful career in comedy Franken has now been successful in winning a seat in the US Senate, truly a house full of jokers.
In no sense is Franken a failed comedian.
For actual "failure," see... Norm Coleman.
Bigd:"you quoted Blake and then left out part of what he said.">>
DAR
You want me to quote MORE when people can read what he said themselves? I quoted his comment "Franken is a failed comedian!" and then responded directly to that, specific, claim.
D.
-----------------
"U.S. District Judge Denny Chin denied Fox's request for an injunction to block the publication of Franken's book, characterizing the network's claim as "wholly without merit, both factually and legally." During the judge's questioning, spectators in the court's gallery frequently laughed at Fox's case.[5] Franken later joked, "Usually when you say someone was literally laughed out of court, you mean they were figuratively laughed out of court, but Fox was literally laughed out of court."[6] Three days later, Fox filed papers to drop its lawsuit."
***
DAR
This is good news. Blake likes him some Swiss socialism.
[quote]
"Swiss insurance companies offer the mandatory basic plan on a not-for-profit basis,...
[Government] regulating drug prices and fees for lab tests and medical devices.
doctors grumble that [government] cost controls...
Swiss government also provides direct cash subsidies..."
DAR
Well lookie who is singing the praises of socialism now! The Swiss nontheless!
Blake takes a baby swing at Canada's system again with a crusty anecdote (actually Bigd material recycled) but nobody believes that junk anymore. It's been spanked too many times.
If he has a comprehensive, scientific analysis of the two systems which doesn't show Canada coming out on top, I encourage him to share it. He doesn't do this, because he can't.
Hey, if you like the Swiss system so much, you should look at France. Theirs is even better, and cheaper too.
D.
-----------------
FRANCE
• Best performance in “Mortality Amenable to Health Care.” --The Healing of America, pg 49
• Life expectancy at age 60 = 23.3 years, (In the US = 17.9 years). --ibid, pg 49
• More doctors, more beds, same wait times, more choice. --ibid, pg 50
• Less cost: $3,165 per person vs. $7,000 in US. --ibid, pg 52
• 67% less administration. --ibid, pg 59
• Fixed prices for care are one third to one quarter of US prices. --ibid, pg 61
France has the “smart card,” the “Carte Vitale.” All health records, all billing information, all stored on an inexpensive, encrypted card (which was designed in America). Bills are paid in three days.
***
"While the troops are navigating the unbelievable paper storm and administrative maze that is military care,..." --Big Dog, today
vs.
“How many here have actually worked in military medicine? The care is the best in the world, the administrative side and the costs leave little to be desired. Military medicine is a bit of a specialty of mine.”
--Big Dog, Monday Jun 15th, 2009 at 23:09
I wonder which one of these statements is true?
"unbelievable... administrative maze"
Or an
"administrative side [that] leave little to be desired"
Bigd: "the prices are reasonable because there are a lot of federal employees in the pool."
DAR
Hey, want even more reasonable prices? Put *everyone* in the same pool. That's something our peer countries figured out a long time ago.
***
BLK: "liberals are afraid and morally unable to prosecute their own,>>
DAR
Let's see, Blagovich, gone, Eliot Spitzer, gone, John Edwards, politically toast (and that for adultery, you should see the list of current republican adulterers, whoa).
Now let's look at the moral party:
Vitters, the fellow who likes hookers to put him diapers? Republican currently sitting in the Senate.
Larry Craig, Mr. "Wide Stance" while cruising for gay sex in public airports? Republican sitting in the Senate.
Mark Foley soliciting e-mails and sexually explicit instant messages with 16 year old congressional pages? Republican congressman.
That's just off the top of my head.
Do note that each one of those 60 republican pedophiles referenced above are backed up with links you can check. A list of 20 or twenty republican pedo's would be quite impressive. But sixty? That's a little hard to dismiss.
And that doesn't include the ones who admit to sex with animals. Would you like to see those again? Just let me know.
D.
-------------------
"What is up with all these Republicans?"
--President George W. Bush responding to the revelation that Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig had plead guilty to soliciting an undercover cop at a Minneapolis airport.
***
Bigd: Who is the worst president is an arguable point since we all use different measures.>>
DAR
Of course, but the measurement of economic matters are pretty straight forward and objective.
Bigd: "[Carter] is an anti Semite">>
DAR
He's worked as hard, and accomplished as much for Israel, as anyone living. But he also tells the truth, which is that sometimes Israel screws up and oppresses people.
Bigd:" caused huge problems with inflation..?
DAR
While Carter comes in 10th for inflation, Nixon came in 9th.
Bigd: "rescue attempt in Iran agaisnt the advice of those who knew better...>>
DAR
As if he didn't have advice to do it, and wouldn't have been criticized even more if he hadn't tried.
Bigd: and got a lot of service people killed.>>
DAR
Actually, eight. Just yesterday you said 45,000 dead Americans was "statistically insignificant."
Should we blame him for the sand storm too?
"An unexpected sandstorm of the kind known as a haboob contributed to the loss of three of the eight RH-53D helicopters...."
Bigd: "his wimpiness in the Iran hostage crisis is of epic proportions.">>
DAR
Wimpiness which in the end resulted in every single one of them coming home safe. For which they are grateful (I watched them thanking him the other day in a documentary). There were worse possible outcomes than this.
D.
***
[Acorn bashing]
DAR
ACORN Foresaw the Foreclosure Crisis in 2001
The grassroots group helped Oakland pass a tough anti-predatory lending law that would have halted the housing crisis before it started. Then subprime lenders started making campaign contributions in Sacramento.
Excerpt:
"Back in the late 1990s, ACORN was acutely aware of the grave dangers posed by subprime mortgage lending because of the group's close work with low-income property owners. ACORN officials were witnessing first-hand how unscrupulous lenders were enticing people to buy homes they couldn't afford and advising long-time homeowners to strip out all of the equity in their homes. The group then saw those very same people lose everything when their subprime mortgages kicked in and low-income neighborhoods were devastated.
So in 2001, ACORN helped sponsor anti-predatory lending laws in Oakland and a few other cities around the nation that would have greatly curtailed the subprime market."
<a href="http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/acor ... 03397">The rest</a>.
***
Bigd: Franken is not funny.>>
DAR
His success, awards, and three #1 best selling books (political satire, meticulously researched) prove otherwise. "Lying Liars" was #1 for six weeks.
Hey, why aren't there any successful conservative comedians? Dennis Miller was, then he flipped, and his career fell off a cliff. The folks over at Cluster FOX tried to do a variant of The Daily Show but it died on the spot. Foxworthy is conservative but he rarely talks about politics. Conservatives it seems, don't even know when they are being made fun of (about half think Colbert is on their side) and apparently they just aren't funny. I wonder why? Can you name a political satirist that is as successful as Franken? I don't think so.
Bigd: He is a tax cheat>>
DAR
I hadn't heard that one. Do tell.
Bigd: He attacks those who disagree with him in a manner that is mean spirited and not funny.>>
DAR
Sorry, you just broke the irony meter with that one.
Have you seen the writings of a fellow named Blake who posts around here? I don't read them either (sometimes just a peak, bit of a logical car wreck).
Anyway, I think Franken is hilarious. And perhaps I would know, I've read two or three of his books and you haven't read any.
D.
***
BLK: "We still have a Bureau of Indian Affairs,>>
DAR
We still have Indians. Your type didn't manage to kill them all off. It wasn't from lack of trying!
BLK: NONE of these bureaucracies pay their own way.>>
DAR
They aren't suppose to. But your wrong anyway, S.S. has ran surpluses most years, the Post Office often has as well. Government is non-profit, on purpose.
BLK: The top 1% pays 10% of all taxes>>
DAR
The top 1% have as much wealth as the bottom 95%. They're getting a bargain.
BLK: The middle class pay the remaining 3% of taxes,>>
DAR
You define "middle class" as the bottom 50%? Sorry, I can't take that seriously.
D.
***
So you’ve change your tune from:
“SS... will be completely, irretrievably insolvent by 2016″
To…
“by 2037, will be doing so, UNSUSTAINABLY”>>
To now, latest version:
"but by 2016,... SS will be unsustainably broke."
Keep dancing.
Actually, you were right the second time.
***
Bigd: "SS does not have 2 trillion in the bank.">>
DAR
You're right, they have more than that.
"In 2007, the cumulative excess of Social Security taxes and interest received over benefits paid out stood at $2.2 trillion."
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html
Bigd: "the paper backing it is worthless.">>
DAR
The paper backing it is just as "worthless" as every dollar you have in your wallet. If your American dollars are "worthless" please pack them up and send them to me. I'll send you a little billy goat which is worth about $15. Not much, but more than your "worthless" dollars.
Bigd: "Where will we get the money to cover the debt.">>
DAR
Ah, a good question! Maybe we don't need over a thousand military bases around the world? Maybe we don't need to spend as much as the rest of the world combined on our military? Maybe we could address our health care problems and stop paying more than any other country for an inefficient system that doesn't cover everyone? Etc.
Bigd: To make it clear, there is no money in the bank. It has been spent.">>
DAR
Bah. The US has lots of net wealth tucked away. But huge fiscal problems are coming on the horizon. Which party do we trust to not run up huge deficits? What does the record show? See below.
D.
-----------------
Which party has had the largest annual deficits? Over the last 75 years, Republican administrations have had an average annual deficit of $83.4 billion. The average for Democratic presidents is one fourth of that, only $20 billion.
--George Mason’s University, History News Network
Which party is better at “small government” and keeping federal spending down? Since 1959 federal spending has gone up an average $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. So it’s no surprise to find Republican presidents have increased the national debt much faster, more than $200 billion per year, versus less than a $100 billion per year under Democrats. And this is not even counting the second term of G.W. Bush.
--Michael Kinsley, Washington post
<a href="viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5317&p=18579&hilit= ... 1">LINK</a>.
***
Bigd: "a trillion dollars is a stack of thousand dollar bills 768 miles high.">>
DAR
Not even close. Four inches is a million dollars. A trillion is a stack only <a href="http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcour ... llion">358 feet high.</a> You're off by about 11,300x.
I prefer this example. Put $1 bills end to end. Then a trillion dollars goes from the earth to a little past the sun (90+ million miles).
D.
[I misread my source. Correction found by Bigd: a billion is stack of $1,000 bills 358 feet high. To get a trillion the stack would be 67.9 miles high.
***
BLK: "waiting time for surgeries in Canada is about 1 1/2 years>>
DAR
Actually, about half are considered urgent and done immediately.
As for the non-urgent cases, they are as I carefully referenced from an extensive study:
“The median wait time for surgery is four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 3 months.” <a href="http://www.healthcoalition.ca/index-eng.pdf">LINK</a>
BLK: if they do not deny you completely.>>
DAR
Another advantage of the Canadian system. If your doctor says you need it, you get it. No exceptions because there are no insurance companies to haggle with (about 1 in 5 insurance claims are denied in the US).
Why do you find it useful to tell such obvious lies? I can't imagine it impresses anyone, and it's kind of embarrassing.
D.
***
Your source: "The authors conclude only one thing: that people without health insurance tend to die more often than those with health insurance. With that the Czar agrees,..."
The "Czar" just conceded the point.
The "Czar" isn't very bright either. You don't want to defend the claims in that article.
Harvard says 45k, National Academy of Science says 18k. And those are just the deaths. The number of people suffering with various ailments from lack of care who don't die would be vastly greater.
D.
***
BLK: "Canada has nothing we’d want or need">>
DAR
We don't "want or need" better outcomes, less errors, higher satisfaction, universal coverage, less waste, no bankruptcies and all for less cost?
Okay, let's go with the Swiss method then. It's also better than the US system.
D.
-------------------
"The extra cost of malpractice lawsuits are insignificant proportions of health spending in both the U.S. (0.46%) and Canada (0.27%). In Canada the total cost of settlements, legal fees, and insurance comes to $4 per person each year, but in the United States it is $16."
--"Health spending in the United States and the rest of the industrialized world". Health affairs (Project Hope)
***
Bigd: "The Republicans who get in trouble are removed by the party">>
DAR
My above examples show that isn't true.
Bigd: Spitzer quit>>
DAR
He was pushed, by Demos.
Bigd: The kid Foley emailed was a few weeks shy of 18.>>
DAR
One was. Two others were 16. See references <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley ... l">here</a>
Bigd: Craig was found guilty of what?>>
DAR
He plead guilty to "lewd conduct" but that was because he wanted to avoid exposing the fact that he was trolling for gay sex, in public.
Bigd: I do not know what he was doing there>>
DAR
He was trying to get another man to play with his noodle.
Bigd: Blago was removed from the legislature>>
DAR
Which is controlled by democrats.
Gotta go.
D.
-------------------
<a href="http://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2006/0 ... rers/">The Top Ten Republican Adulterers</a>.
***
ADM: "I don’t know why people rip on [Franken].>>
DAR
Because he is really good at exposing conservative lies and he doesn't hold back like so many wimpy liberals. He especially focused on O'Reilly, who he busted mercilessly in his best selling book "Lying Liars" and then daily on his radio show.
But O'Reilly, the loofah meister, does provide a really big and easy target:
http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.c ... chive.html
D.
***
BLK: "the cost of malpractice, which is why we in Texas reformed our system">>
DAR
Canada's cost of settlements, per person is 1/4 that of the US's. Is that another thing we don't need to learn from them?
Oh, and nice debunk of this here:
Medical Malpractice Myths Debunked – Texas, California and Some Michigan Thrown In
"We’ve noticed a definite spike in the amount of medical malpractice-related hooey being slung about since President Obama’s big health speech this past Wednesday, so we thought we’d spend a little time today addressing a couple of the biggest whoppers—specifically, the notion that Texas and California, two states with the most Draconian restrictions on injured patients’ rights, should somehow be held out as health care “success” stories."
<a href="http://www.thepoptort.com/2009/09/medic ... .html">The rest</a>.
D.
---------------------
More:
Medical Malpractice Reform Does Not Deliver in Texas
Excerpt: "The campaign's promise, that tort reform would cause doctors to begin returning to the state's sparsely populated regions, has now been tested for four years. It has not proven to be true."
<a href="http://reno.injuryboard.com/medical-mal ... 27382">the rest...</a>
***
Bigd: I assume you wanted a conservative one:
P J O’Rourke>>
DAR
So you've got one. P.J. O'Rourke. A great comedian by the way but probably not as well known or as successful as Franken. I grew up reading his hilarious material in National Lampoon. Years later he went kind of libertarian but never socially conservative. He roasts religious nuts as hard as anyone.
"Making fun of born-again christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope." [P.J. O'Rourke]
Bigd: Dennis Miller is still successful.>>
DAR
When I peruse his wiki page I see a lot of:
"Game shows
For one month, Miller hosted Amne$ia for NBC, but due to poor ratings the show was canceled.
Sports Unfiltered on Versus...
It debuted on November 6, 2007. The show was canceled after a month."
Not being so successful with the comedy he has turned to selling chocolates:
"Everybody has to sell out at some point to make a living. I'm a family man. I sold out to make an M&M commercial." --Miller
And he's liberal on the social issues:
"I'm basically a libertarian. I'm pro-gay marriage and pro-choice, but nobody wants to hear all that.... They determine who you are based on the war." --Miller
D.
***
***
Bigd: "I think they are film makers.">>
DAR
That's a duck. I didn't ask their vocation. You said MM is a higher paid version "of the two who went after ACORN."
What do you think of their conduct? And a follow up: why the double standard?
Bigd: "The difference is that they did not splice and edit things to present a lie.">>
DAR
Oh really? And you know this how? Did they include all the film from the places they went to and got turned away? Nope.
But what they got was damning enough. And incidentally, I quite approve.
Although, now, big surprise, we find the fellow was lying about his funding.
"James O'Keefe,... has repeatedly said that he is "absolutely independent" and received no outside funding to make his films.
But the Voice has learned that O'Keefe, in fact, has had heavyweight conservative backers who funded the young filmmaker as recently as a few months before his ACORN films were made."
<a href="http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninsca ... p">LINK</a>.
***
Bigd: "Is this an accurate portrayal of what took place in the film or is it a lie. Can you defend this as true?>>
DAR
Yes, and yes.
You made the claim that he made many errors. It's not clear what you are claiming is an error. I guess you just want to throw something out there and have me to do the work of knocking down something you haven't even bother to set up.
As I said, MM is careful to reference, in great detail, all of the major claims in his movies. This makes it much easier to knock down the nonsense that people invariably throw at him.
See below.
D.
-----------------
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Fox was the first network to call Florida for Bush. Before that, some other networks had called Florida for Gore, and they changed after Fox called it for Bush.
* “With information provided from the Voter News Service, NBC was the first network to project Gore the winner in Florida at 7:48 pm. At 7:50 pm ,CNN and CBS project Gore the winner in Florida as well.” By 8:02 pm , all five networks and the Associated Press had called Gore the winner in Florida. Even the VNS called Gore the winner at 7:52 pm. At 2:16 am, Fox calls Florida for Bush, NBC follows at 2:16 am. ABC is the last network to call the Florida for Bush, at 2:20 am, while AP and VNS never call Florida for Bush. CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/sto ... rt/cnn.pdf
* Ten minutes after the top of the hour, network excitement was again beginning to build. At 2:16 a.m., the call was made: Fox News Channel, with Bush's first cousin John Ellis running its election desk, was the first to project Florida -- and the presidency -- for the Texas governor. Within minutes, the other networks followed suit. "George Bush, Governor of Texas will become the 43rd President of the United States," CNN's Bernard Shaw announced atop a graphic montage of a smiling Bush. "At 18 minutes past two o'clock Eastern time, CNN declares that George Walker Bush has won Florida's 25 electoral votes and this should put him over the top."PBS: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/elect ... night.html
DAR
You started with number one. If you want to save yourself some time, go here and go through the list of references backing up his claims:
<a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films ... >MM.com</a>
It's long.
***
DAR
Regarding splicing, there was no need. The material that was not damning to ACORN, the material that would have made them look good (when the workers turned them away), is never shown.
Bigd: "No double standard."
DAR
Of course double standard. YOU said Moore is: "...is a higher paid version of the two who went after ACORN.”
You are saying their tactics are the same (and they are) yet YOU like one and vilify the other. Biased, double, standard according to your own words.
Bigd: "Moore... used archive footage of public officials">>
DAR
Yes he did. And this matters why?
Bigd: "They just happen to be more honest."
DAR
Your still trying to land a glove on MM. We'll see how that goes.
Was O'Keefe "more honest" when he said he received no outside funding to make his film, and now we find he actually received 30 thousand dollars?
On what right-wing planet is that "more honest?"
D.
***
Bigd: "you guys attack the two who made the films and defend ACORN.
DAR
Not true.
With regard to O'Keefe's action (which is as you say a lower paid version of MM), I said above:
"And incidentally, I quite approve."
With regard to ACORN, they're great. They do a lot of good work. The amount of money they receive from the government is tiny. Any organization of this size is going to have bad apples. Fire them. Clean house. Do more stings.
D.
***
Bigd: "I did answer the question by pointing out the numerous hospitals that give free care to such people.">>
DAR
That doesn't answer the question. Would you like to try again:
Question: If a child is born in the US, with a serious life threatening disease, and the parents are poor and without insurance, are you saying that if no one else steps forward to help the child, the government, our society, should NOT take action to care for the child?
Yes, or no.
Now, if you would like to put the burden on hospitals, do THEY have an obligation to provide free care?
Are you going to duck that one too?
Why is it that in the wealthiest country in the world, when people (or their children) get sick, and they don't have insurance, or enough insurance (that's 25 million) they have to go around BEGGING and then hope for the best?
Bigd: "18,000 is certainly a number that could be on health care the government already pays for.">>
DAR
Well then why are they dying? And if this is true, why are you opposed to having a government program if it's just a formal version of what "the government already pays for?"
Bigd: "100,000 Canadians per year die while waiting">>
DAR
My claim of 18k is from the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific organization in the US. Extremely conservative in their claims and exhaustively thorough. They don't make stuff up, it doesn't get any better than this.
And this came out a few days ago:
<a href="http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... /">Harvard Medical Study Links Lack of Insurance to 45,000 U.S. Deaths a Year</a>
I have several others, with higher numbers, which I have less confidence in.
In contrast, your claim, is unreferenced.
That's because it's the product of someone's bottom.
Just for fun I did some checking. Your gateway pundit spin site is the only place on the planet making that claim. If there were any merit to it whatsoever, and there is none, it would be everywhere. Especially in Canada. It's utter garbage.
D.
------------------
From a lecture I gave:
Canada has had wait times for some procedures that have been too long. In 2007 Canada had a conference about this and is spending $4.5 billion to address this. This is being carefully measured and tracked by hospital by hospital. Currently, for non-urgent care:
“The median wait time in Canada to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 89.5% waiting less than 3 months.” --<a href="http://www.healthcoalition.ca/index-eng.pdf">LINK pdf</a>
"The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is two weeks with 86.4% waiting less than 3 months.” --ibid
“The median wait time for surgery is four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 3 months.” --ibid
***
Bigd: "all the video clips are real clips, and nothing he says is, narrowly speaking, false.">>
DAR
So your source agrees with me. You really could have made your post much shorter.
Bigd: "MM is trying to deceive people into believing that Bush stole this election>>
DAR
He did steal the election.
Bigd: with the help of Fox and a relative.>>
DAR
His relative at FOX did what he could.
---
F 911: The man who was in charge of the decision desk at FOX on election night was Bush’s first cousin, John Ellis.
* “John Ellis, a first cousin of George W. Bush, ran the network's ‘decision desk’ during the 2000 election, and Fox was the first to name Bush the winner. Earlier, Ellis had made six phone calls to Cousin Bush during the vote-counting.” William O’Rourke, “Talk Radio Key to GOP Victory,” Chicago Sun-Times, December 3, 2002.
* A Fox News consultant, John Ellis, who made judgments about presidential ‘calls’ on Election Night admits he was in touch with George W. Bush and FL Gov. Jeb Bush by telephone several times during the night, but denies breaking any rules. CNN, November 14, 2000; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/
11/14/politics/main249357.shtml.
* John Ellis, the Fox consultant who called Florida early for George Bush, had to stop writing about the campaign for the Boston Globe because of family ‘loyalty’ to Bush. CBS News, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/
11/14/politics/main249357.shtml,
November 14, 2000. --MM, ibid
DAR
So of all of the examples of errors you could throw at MM, you choose to go with these tiny nuances of a disputed timeline (as if CBS wouldn't be covering their bottom on this if they had followed FOX, and who cares anyway) and in the end, after all of the blather and opinion, YOUR cut and paste source says:
"all the video clips are real clips, and nothing he says is, narrowly speaking, false."
Got anything better? Something substantive?
Bigd: "the issue of Saudis leaving the country"
DAR
Make your case. Be specific in quoting MM's claims accurately rather than paraphrasing a movie you haven't seen. We'll see how it holds up.
D.
***
Bigd: He made it look like Bush was saying that the elitists are his base when he was at the dinner.>>
DAR
He "made it look?" That's what Bush said, verbatim. Are you on glue?
Bush and Gore do NY:
"Bush gazed around the diamond-studded $800-a-plate crowd and commented on the wealth on display.
"This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores," quipped the GOP standard-bearer. "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/ ... ml">CBS</a>.
Bigd: "he manipulates the facts to show what he wants people to believe"
DAR
He has an opinion and he uses the medium of film to give his opinion. You don't like his opinion. Some times he is sloppy (but not nearly as sloppy as you). Sometimes his opinion, in my opinion, is petty and stupid (blaming K-Mart for legally selling bullets which were used to kill someone, is petty and stupid).
But I am not so concerned with opinion. Let's see if you can show a substantive factual error.
D.
***
Bigd: I don’t believe they [the UN] do good work.>>
DAR
Then you have left stepped outside of the reality based community where the rest of us reside.
Very abbreviated list of: UNITED NATIONS ACCOMPLISHMENTS
1. Deploying more than 35 peace-keeping missions. There are presently 16 active peace-keeping forces in operation.
2. Credited with negotiating 172 peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts
3. The UN has enabled people in over 45 countries to participate in free and fair elections
5. UNICEF spends more than $800 million a year, primarily on immunization, health care, nutrition and basic education in 138 countries.
6. UN Human Rights Commission has focused world attention on cases of torture, disappearance, and arbitrary detention and has generated international pressure.
8. Has helped minimize the threat of a nuclear war by inspecting nuclear reactors in 90 [countries].
11. The UN was a major factor in bringing about the downfall of the apartheid system.
12. More than 30 million refugees fleeing war, famine or persecution have received aid from the UN.
13. Aiding Palestinian Refugees with free schooling, essential health care, relief assistance and key social services... 2.9 million refugees...
14. Alleviating Chronic Hunger and Rural Poverty in Developing Countries, providing credit that has benefited over 230 million people in nearly 100 developing countries.
17. Providing Safe Drinking Water Available to 1.3 billion people in rural areas during the last decade.
18. Eradicating Smallpox through vaccinations and monitoring. Helped wipe out polio from the Western Hemisphere,...
19. Pressing for Universal Immunization of polio, tetanus...[etc] saving the lives of more than 3 million children each year.
20. Reducing child mortality rates, halved since 1960,...
21. Fighting parasitic diseases, such as saving the lives of 7 million children from going blind from the river blindness
See another 33 examples here:
http://www.una-usadanecounty.org/about/ ... ry_id=1550
D.
----------------------
As to the cost:
"It's a bureaucracy certainly, but not huge," says former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The annual core [UN] functions cost about $1.25 billion, or she says, "roughly what the Pentagon spends every 32 hours." -- http://tinyurl.com/tii9
***
[Who said “I can see Russia from my house?”]
DAR
Tina Fey, a comedian turning up the volume ever so slightly on some bit of idiocy from Palin.
Speaking of McCain, you did notice that Beck said the other day:
"I think John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama,..."
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/2 ... l">Link<a/>
D.
***
Bigd: Bush did not steal the election. All post counts analysis shows he won.>>
DAR
FAHRENHEIT 9/11 claimed: Gore got the most votes in 2000.
* [A] consortium [Tribune Co., owner of the Times; Associated Press; CNN; the New York Times; the Palm Beach Post; the St. Petersburg Times; the Wall Street Journal; and the Washington Post] hired the NORC [National Opinion Research Center, a nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the University of Chicago] to view each untallied ballot and gather information about how it was marked. The media organizations then used computers to sort and tabulate votes, based on varying scenarios that had been raised during the post-election scramble in Florida. Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Mr. Gore erased Mr. Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes. Donald Lambro, “Recount Provides No Firm Answers,” Washington Times, November 12, 2001.
* “The review found that the result would have been different if every canvassing board in every county had examined every undervote, a situation that no election or court authority had ordered. Gore had called for such a statewide manual recount if Bush would agree, but Bush rejected the idea and there was no mechanism in place to conduct one.” Martin Merzer, “Review of Ballots Finds Bush's Win Would Have Endured Manual Recount,” Miami Herald, April 4, 2001.
* See also, the following article by one of the Washington Post journalists who ran the consortium recount. The relevant point is made in Table I of the article. http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
Bigd: MM lies, plain and simple.>>
DAR
Show this. Your source says: "nothing he says is, narrowly speaking, false.”
How are you gonna squeeze a lie out of that. Remember to show: a,b,c.
If you guys restrained yourselves to only posting stuff that was, narrowly speaking, NOT false, it would make your posts much shorter!
Bigd: "if I had it [copy of MM's movie] I would make a bunch of copies and give them away.">>
DAR
So you have no trouble with breaking the law and doing things that are illegal when it suits your purposes. Nice.
D.
***
DAR
You said: "I don’t believe they do good work."
They do. In fact, they do tremendous work, more good work than any organization on the planet, and for a pittance.
Sometimes when I hear such ignorance I wonder why the US should have the honor of being the host nation for this organization that has done so much to improve the world. Then I realize that your silly, ignorance based opinions are from a noisy yet diminishing minority within a noisy yet diminishing party.
D.
--------------
#17. Providing Safe Drinking Water Available to 1.3 billion people in rural areas during the last decade.
***
[what about when the violence and hatred was directed at George Bush?]
DAR
Bush, being the worst president of modern times if not all time was certainly hated (still is). And with good reason. So this is understandable.
But threats of violence?
People who have no arguments and no intellectual support for their beliefs are quick to have tantrums and threaten violence. This blog is a perfect example of that.
Any examples of the left acting like this toward Bush? Today:
"Newsmax: Military Coup Would Take Care Of "Obama Problem"
<a href="http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/ ... e">Link</a>.
Traitors.
D.
***
So rather than admit his mistake, Bigd moves the goal posts from:
"All post counts analysis shows he [Bush] won.>>
To: "The post analysis shows that Bush had a lead in all other instances."
Nice. And if I spank that one, he just makes up a new set of goal posts. Repeat. Boring.
Bush, the illegitimate president, is such spilt milk.
Bigd: "Moore is a liar">>
DAR
Raising the bar? Good. Let's see you show one of those puppies. Remember your abc's.
D.
***
[Franken didn't win the election]
DAR
What a load. I watched that one very closely because I really like Franken and sent him money several times.
Let's review some of the basics:
"The results were certified by each county's canvassing board and then on November 18, 2008, by the Minnesota State Canvassing Board."
"Of the five Canvassing Board members, Ritchie was an elected DFLer, the two justices were appointed by a Republican governor, one judge was appointed by an Independence Party governor, and one was elected in a non-partisan election."
"The state canvassing board certified the recounted vote totals on January 5 with Franken ahead by 225 votes."
"Coleman’s appeal of the panel's decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court was unanimously rejected."
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... 8">etc.</a>
Coleman, a genuinely stupid person, is such spilt, sour, stinking, milk. Franken will be Senator for decades.
D.
------------------
“Most of us here in the media are what I consider infotainers.... Rush Limbaugh is what I call a disinfotainer. He entertains by spreading disinformation.”
--Al Franken at the White House Correspondents' Dinner (4/23/94)
***
Bigd: "I like how you call it Palin idiocy as if she is stupid or something.>>
DAR
Of course she's stupid. She was running for the gig of being back up for president and she couldn't refer to a single supreme court case that she knew of. She couldn't refer to a single news periodical she reads. She is an idiot on stilts. She is an intellectual joke, a farce. When Tina Fey did an award winning performance making Palin look like a fool, she simply read Palin's comments from an interview... verbatim.
Bigd: If only the women in your life were as accomplished.">>
DAR
Unlike Palin, my wife wouldn't quit her job half way through, and she easily has a higher approval rating than Palin.
Favorable: 34%
Unfavorable: 55%
Unsure: 11%
<a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/p.htm">pollingreport</a>.
D.
***
Bigd: Bush the worst? Not a chance.>>
DAR
<a href="http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html">61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst"</a>.
"In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success." --ibid
Bigd: Carter is easily worse>>
DAR
Objective measurement of standard categories of presidential success show, since WWII, Carter is squarely in the middle beating your Nixon, Eisenhower and beating the pants off of both papa Bush and baby Bush *handily.*
<a href="http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_da_ ... >Forbes</a>.
That's fifth place out of eleven. Only two republicans, out of six, beat him.
Bigd: "for you to say it is understandable for Bush to be threatened?>>
DAR
But I didn't say that. Set the glue bottle aside for a moment. I said, as anyone who can read can see, that it is understandable for Bush to be "HATED."
Bigd: advocating hurting him is not something I would ever say was understandable.>>
DAR
It's not understandable? You don't understand it when Obama gets threats at four times the rate Bush did, from people who hold similar positions to yours?
D.
---------------
"How do they train themselves to be so impervious to reality? It begins, I suspect, with religion. They are taught from a young age that it is good to have "faith" -- which is, by definition, a belief without any evidence to back it up. You don't have "faith" Australia exists, or fire burns: you have evidence. You only need "faith" to believe the untrue or unprovable. Indeed, they are taught that faith is the highest aspiration and most noble cause. Is it any surprise this then percolates into their political views? Faith-based thinking spreads and contaminates the rational."
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-ha ... .html">The Republican Party Is Turning Into A Cult</a>.
Turning into?
***
[Now the Obama, the human cost of war is no longer an issue.]
DAR
No one associates these wars with Obama. They are Bush's babies. He pooped the bed and Obama is doing clean up as best as can be expected under the circumstances. Iraq withdrawal is running ahead of schedule, Afghanistan, the quagmire by which all quagmires are judged, is probably going to have to be let go sooner or later.
D.
------------
"I'm not the expert on how the Iraqi people think, because I live in America, where it's nice and safe and secure."
—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 23, 2004
***
So you've change your tune from:
"SS hasn’t been in the black for a long time, and it will be completely, irretrievably insolvent by 2016"
To...
"by 2037, will be doing so, UNSUSTAINABLY">>
DAR
Well that's what matters isn't it? It's not quite right to say someone is broke when they have over 2 trillion in the bank. I suppose you are improving. 2037 is an estimate btw, and it's actually quite a ways away don't ya think?
A little tweak here and there, raise taxes on the rich a little, cut some of their deductions a bit, it'll be fine. Plus, by then, we'll be passed the baby boomer thing, whites will only be five years away from being a minority and as for the ever shrinking republican base... the Christians...
"Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year.
If this trend continues, then: By about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S."
<a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_p ... m">Link</a>.
D.
***
Bigd: "It is not the responsibility of government to provide this service.">>
DAR
Thank you for answering the question.
D.
--------------
"Over the weekend, thousands of Texans attended what is being called the “largest free clinic ever held in the United States” to get health care they otherwise could not afford. ABC-13, a local Houston station, reported that the event showed that there is an “epidemic” of people without proper health coverage in Texas....
Dr. Mehmet Oz, one of the physicians who worked at the clinic this weekend, compared what he saw there to the post-Katrina crisis:
DR. OZ: "We had no idea the overwhelming response we would have, the cries for help from the city of Houston and the state of Texas….This is the largest health mobilization in Houston since Katrina. So a national disaster which brought out this kind of response is now paralleled by a national disaster, because this is just an average day in Houston, and there are thousands of people who need help."
<a href="http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/hea ... t">LINK</a>.
And the world watches in amazement as the wealthiest country in the world can't provide health care for all of it's citizens.
***
Bigd: "45,000 a year is an insignificant number statistically...">>
DAR
45,000 is a line of dead bodies laying end to end extending for 45 miles, every year.
Since these are preventable deaths, due to lack of medical access, in the wealthiest country in the world, this is in no sense "insignificant."
Were the 58,000+ American deaths in Vietnam "statistically insignificant?"
D.
***
[Polanski, liberal pedophile]
DAR
Hey, Fair, I'll see your Polanski and raise you 60 leading republican child humpers.
What's your excuse for this?
"Republican Offenders dot com" has produced a list of 272 Republicans charged with criminal activity, 60 of which are pedophiles (just 1998-2008). Each name is linked to a group heading of the type of crime. (Among the categories are rape, bribery and "assorted felonies".)
http://www.republicanoffenders.com/
D.
***
[Democratic pedophiles in our midst]
DAR
Well, they are especially in YOUR midst.
Republican leadership, just the pedophiles, 60 of them:
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
D.
***
[You don’t get to suddently say Bush pooped anything here concerning Afghanistan.]
DAR
Of course I do. He let Bin Laden get away in Torra Borra, and then he took the emphasis off of Afghanistan (which was the right war) to waste time lives and treasure on a pet project attacking a country that didn't threaten the US (the wrong war).
D.
***
BLK: "horribly, insane liberal screeds that twist the facts into something that doesn’t even remotely resemble common sense.">>
DAR
This is Blake describing that nest of lefties I cited over at... "Forbes."
It's not possible to make fun of this, so I won't.
D.
***
[You used this graph before and I “roasted” it then.]
DAR
Actually you didn't. Perhaps you forgot. It uses standard objective measurements of what we judge presidents and prosperity by:
GDP Rank
Real Disposable Personal Income Rank
Employment Rank
Unemployment Rank
Inflation Rank
Deficit Reduction Rank
If you don't like these, give me some others. You don't like these because, well, no reasons really, you just don't like the result.
Every indicator under Clinton improved, and nearly every indicator under Bush, became worse. But that's cherry picking the best against the very worst.
Aside from your emotional non-rational feelings, Carter's performance was in the middle, and he beats all of your republicans except two (out of six).
That's just the way it is.
D.
***
[Franken is a failed comedian!]
DAR
Failed? Are we talking about the same person?
Or are you just lying again?
Nevermind.
D.
-------------
ps. The word "failed" and Franken don't really go well together. Watch:
"Franken received seven Emmy nominations and three Emmy Awards for his television writing and production.
Franken is the author of five New York Times best-selling books, three of which reached #1
Franken was presented with the USO's Merit Award for his 10 years of service to the organization through visiting injured and deployed service members.
Franken was sworn in to the Senate on Tuesday, July 7, 2009."
Truth hurts when you are devoted to lies.
<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Franken">wiki</a>.
***
Bigd: There are plenty of items we could use to measure [presidents]>>
DAR
Obviously. But these are normal objective measurements of presidential success. You don't like the results for emotional reasons.
Bigd: "Carter was a failure with high inflation"
DAR
As of course accounted for in this chart. He came in tenth in that category.
Here is another examination:
"Presidential rankings according to 65 historians and professional observers of the presidency surveyed by the cable channel C-SPAN. Participants ranked each president by 10 leadership attributes."
http://www.c-span.org/presidentialsurve ... nking.aspx
Carter comes in 25th out of all presidents.
You bias against him is not based on reason but rather emotion.
D.
----------
"American Gross Domestic Product has grown nearly three times as fast under Democrats as Republicans. Since 1930, the annual mean growth in real GDP under Republican Presidents has been 1.8 percent; under Democrats, 5.1 percent."
<a href="http://hnn.us/articles/8301.html">George Mason’s University, History News Network</a>.
***
Bigd: "but none of them are awards for being a great COMEDIAN.>>
DAR
Note to Bigd, all of Franken's books, including the three NYT's #1 best sellers, are filled with comedy, because they were written by a very successful, comedian.
Also, his "seven Emmy nominations and three Emmy Awards for his television writing and production," are, contrary to what you claim, indeed awards for his ability to write COMEDY.
You have been listening to Bill O'Lielly's lies too much.
After having what is by any reasonable measurement a very successful career in comedy Franken has now been successful in winning a seat in the US Senate, truly a house full of jokers.
In no sense is Franken a failed comedian.
For actual "failure," see... Norm Coleman.
Bigd:"you quoted Blake and then left out part of what he said.">>
DAR
You want me to quote MORE when people can read what he said themselves? I quoted his comment "Franken is a failed comedian!" and then responded directly to that, specific, claim.
D.
-----------------
"U.S. District Judge Denny Chin denied Fox's request for an injunction to block the publication of Franken's book, characterizing the network's claim as "wholly without merit, both factually and legally." During the judge's questioning, spectators in the court's gallery frequently laughed at Fox's case.[5] Franken later joked, "Usually when you say someone was literally laughed out of court, you mean they were figuratively laughed out of court, but Fox was literally laughed out of court."[6] Three days later, Fox filed papers to drop its lawsuit."
***
DAR
This is good news. Blake likes him some Swiss socialism.
[quote]
"Swiss insurance companies offer the mandatory basic plan on a not-for-profit basis,...
[Government] regulating drug prices and fees for lab tests and medical devices.
doctors grumble that [government] cost controls...
Swiss government also provides direct cash subsidies..."
DAR
Well lookie who is singing the praises of socialism now! The Swiss nontheless!
Blake takes a baby swing at Canada's system again with a crusty anecdote (actually Bigd material recycled) but nobody believes that junk anymore. It's been spanked too many times.
If he has a comprehensive, scientific analysis of the two systems which doesn't show Canada coming out on top, I encourage him to share it. He doesn't do this, because he can't.
Hey, if you like the Swiss system so much, you should look at France. Theirs is even better, and cheaper too.
D.
-----------------
FRANCE
• Best performance in “Mortality Amenable to Health Care.” --The Healing of America, pg 49
• Life expectancy at age 60 = 23.3 years, (In the US = 17.9 years). --ibid, pg 49
• More doctors, more beds, same wait times, more choice. --ibid, pg 50
• Less cost: $3,165 per person vs. $7,000 in US. --ibid, pg 52
• 67% less administration. --ibid, pg 59
• Fixed prices for care are one third to one quarter of US prices. --ibid, pg 61
France has the “smart card,” the “Carte Vitale.” All health records, all billing information, all stored on an inexpensive, encrypted card (which was designed in America). Bills are paid in three days.
***
"While the troops are navigating the unbelievable paper storm and administrative maze that is military care,..." --Big Dog, today
vs.
“How many here have actually worked in military medicine? The care is the best in the world, the administrative side and the costs leave little to be desired. Military medicine is a bit of a specialty of mine.”
--Big Dog, Monday Jun 15th, 2009 at 23:09
I wonder which one of these statements is true?
"unbelievable... administrative maze"
Or an
"administrative side [that] leave little to be desired"
Bigd: "the prices are reasonable because there are a lot of federal employees in the pool."
DAR
Hey, want even more reasonable prices? Put *everyone* in the same pool. That's something our peer countries figured out a long time ago.
***
BLK: "liberals are afraid and morally unable to prosecute their own,>>
DAR
Let's see, Blagovich, gone, Eliot Spitzer, gone, John Edwards, politically toast (and that for adultery, you should see the list of current republican adulterers, whoa).
Now let's look at the moral party:
Vitters, the fellow who likes hookers to put him diapers? Republican currently sitting in the Senate.
Larry Craig, Mr. "Wide Stance" while cruising for gay sex in public airports? Republican sitting in the Senate.
Mark Foley soliciting e-mails and sexually explicit instant messages with 16 year old congressional pages? Republican congressman.
That's just off the top of my head.
Do note that each one of those 60 republican pedophiles referenced above are backed up with links you can check. A list of 20 or twenty republican pedo's would be quite impressive. But sixty? That's a little hard to dismiss.
And that doesn't include the ones who admit to sex with animals. Would you like to see those again? Just let me know.
D.
-------------------
"What is up with all these Republicans?"
--President George W. Bush responding to the revelation that Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig had plead guilty to soliciting an undercover cop at a Minneapolis airport.
***
Bigd: Who is the worst president is an arguable point since we all use different measures.>>
DAR
Of course, but the measurement of economic matters are pretty straight forward and objective.
Bigd: "[Carter] is an anti Semite">>
DAR
He's worked as hard, and accomplished as much for Israel, as anyone living. But he also tells the truth, which is that sometimes Israel screws up and oppresses people.
Bigd:" caused huge problems with inflation..?
DAR
While Carter comes in 10th for inflation, Nixon came in 9th.
Bigd: "rescue attempt in Iran agaisnt the advice of those who knew better...>>
DAR
As if he didn't have advice to do it, and wouldn't have been criticized even more if he hadn't tried.
Bigd: and got a lot of service people killed.>>
DAR
Actually, eight. Just yesterday you said 45,000 dead Americans was "statistically insignificant."
Should we blame him for the sand storm too?
"An unexpected sandstorm of the kind known as a haboob contributed to the loss of three of the eight RH-53D helicopters...."
Bigd: "his wimpiness in the Iran hostage crisis is of epic proportions.">>
DAR
Wimpiness which in the end resulted in every single one of them coming home safe. For which they are grateful (I watched them thanking him the other day in a documentary). There were worse possible outcomes than this.
D.
***
[Acorn bashing]
DAR
ACORN Foresaw the Foreclosure Crisis in 2001
The grassroots group helped Oakland pass a tough anti-predatory lending law that would have halted the housing crisis before it started. Then subprime lenders started making campaign contributions in Sacramento.
Excerpt:
"Back in the late 1990s, ACORN was acutely aware of the grave dangers posed by subprime mortgage lending because of the group's close work with low-income property owners. ACORN officials were witnessing first-hand how unscrupulous lenders were enticing people to buy homes they couldn't afford and advising long-time homeowners to strip out all of the equity in their homes. The group then saw those very same people lose everything when their subprime mortgages kicked in and low-income neighborhoods were devastated.
So in 2001, ACORN helped sponsor anti-predatory lending laws in Oakland and a few other cities around the nation that would have greatly curtailed the subprime market."
<a href="http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/acor ... 03397">The rest</a>.
***
Bigd: Franken is not funny.>>
DAR
His success, awards, and three #1 best selling books (political satire, meticulously researched) prove otherwise. "Lying Liars" was #1 for six weeks.
Hey, why aren't there any successful conservative comedians? Dennis Miller was, then he flipped, and his career fell off a cliff. The folks over at Cluster FOX tried to do a variant of The Daily Show but it died on the spot. Foxworthy is conservative but he rarely talks about politics. Conservatives it seems, don't even know when they are being made fun of (about half think Colbert is on their side) and apparently they just aren't funny. I wonder why? Can you name a political satirist that is as successful as Franken? I don't think so.
Bigd: He is a tax cheat>>
DAR
I hadn't heard that one. Do tell.
Bigd: He attacks those who disagree with him in a manner that is mean spirited and not funny.>>
DAR
Sorry, you just broke the irony meter with that one.
Have you seen the writings of a fellow named Blake who posts around here? I don't read them either (sometimes just a peak, bit of a logical car wreck).
Anyway, I think Franken is hilarious. And perhaps I would know, I've read two or three of his books and you haven't read any.
D.
***
BLK: "We still have a Bureau of Indian Affairs,>>
DAR
We still have Indians. Your type didn't manage to kill them all off. It wasn't from lack of trying!
BLK: NONE of these bureaucracies pay their own way.>>
DAR
They aren't suppose to. But your wrong anyway, S.S. has ran surpluses most years, the Post Office often has as well. Government is non-profit, on purpose.
BLK: The top 1% pays 10% of all taxes>>
DAR
The top 1% have as much wealth as the bottom 95%. They're getting a bargain.
BLK: The middle class pay the remaining 3% of taxes,>>
DAR
You define "middle class" as the bottom 50%? Sorry, I can't take that seriously.
D.
***
So you’ve change your tune from:
“SS... will be completely, irretrievably insolvent by 2016″
To…
“by 2037, will be doing so, UNSUSTAINABLY”>>
To now, latest version:
"but by 2016,... SS will be unsustainably broke."
Keep dancing.
Actually, you were right the second time.
***
Bigd: "SS does not have 2 trillion in the bank.">>
DAR
You're right, they have more than that.
"In 2007, the cumulative excess of Social Security taxes and interest received over benefits paid out stood at $2.2 trillion."
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html
Bigd: "the paper backing it is worthless.">>
DAR
The paper backing it is just as "worthless" as every dollar you have in your wallet. If your American dollars are "worthless" please pack them up and send them to me. I'll send you a little billy goat which is worth about $15. Not much, but more than your "worthless" dollars.
Bigd: "Where will we get the money to cover the debt.">>
DAR
Ah, a good question! Maybe we don't need over a thousand military bases around the world? Maybe we don't need to spend as much as the rest of the world combined on our military? Maybe we could address our health care problems and stop paying more than any other country for an inefficient system that doesn't cover everyone? Etc.
Bigd: To make it clear, there is no money in the bank. It has been spent.">>
DAR
Bah. The US has lots of net wealth tucked away. But huge fiscal problems are coming on the horizon. Which party do we trust to not run up huge deficits? What does the record show? See below.
D.
-----------------
Which party has had the largest annual deficits? Over the last 75 years, Republican administrations have had an average annual deficit of $83.4 billion. The average for Democratic presidents is one fourth of that, only $20 billion.
--George Mason’s University, History News Network
Which party is better at “small government” and keeping federal spending down? Since 1959 federal spending has gone up an average $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. So it’s no surprise to find Republican presidents have increased the national debt much faster, more than $200 billion per year, versus less than a $100 billion per year under Democrats. And this is not even counting the second term of G.W. Bush.
--Michael Kinsley, Washington post
<a href="viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5317&p=18579&hilit= ... 1">LINK</a>.
***
Bigd: "a trillion dollars is a stack of thousand dollar bills 768 miles high.">>
DAR
Not even close. Four inches is a million dollars. A trillion is a stack only <a href="http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcour ... llion">358 feet high.</a> You're off by about 11,300x.
I prefer this example. Put $1 bills end to end. Then a trillion dollars goes from the earth to a little past the sun (90+ million miles).
D.
[I misread my source. Correction found by Bigd: a billion is stack of $1,000 bills 358 feet high. To get a trillion the stack would be 67.9 miles high.
***
BLK: "waiting time for surgeries in Canada is about 1 1/2 years>>
DAR
Actually, about half are considered urgent and done immediately.
As for the non-urgent cases, they are as I carefully referenced from an extensive study:
“The median wait time for surgery is four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 3 months.” <a href="http://www.healthcoalition.ca/index-eng.pdf">LINK</a>
BLK: if they do not deny you completely.>>
DAR
Another advantage of the Canadian system. If your doctor says you need it, you get it. No exceptions because there are no insurance companies to haggle with (about 1 in 5 insurance claims are denied in the US).
Why do you find it useful to tell such obvious lies? I can't imagine it impresses anyone, and it's kind of embarrassing.
D.
***
Your source: "The authors conclude only one thing: that people without health insurance tend to die more often than those with health insurance. With that the Czar agrees,..."
The "Czar" just conceded the point.
The "Czar" isn't very bright either. You don't want to defend the claims in that article.
Harvard says 45k, National Academy of Science says 18k. And those are just the deaths. The number of people suffering with various ailments from lack of care who don't die would be vastly greater.
D.
***
BLK: "Canada has nothing we’d want or need">>
DAR
We don't "want or need" better outcomes, less errors, higher satisfaction, universal coverage, less waste, no bankruptcies and all for less cost?
Okay, let's go with the Swiss method then. It's also better than the US system.
D.
-------------------
"The extra cost of malpractice lawsuits are insignificant proportions of health spending in both the U.S. (0.46%) and Canada (0.27%). In Canada the total cost of settlements, legal fees, and insurance comes to $4 per person each year, but in the United States it is $16."
--"Health spending in the United States and the rest of the industrialized world". Health affairs (Project Hope)
***
Bigd: "The Republicans who get in trouble are removed by the party">>
DAR
My above examples show that isn't true.
Bigd: Spitzer quit>>
DAR
He was pushed, by Demos.
Bigd: The kid Foley emailed was a few weeks shy of 18.>>
DAR
One was. Two others were 16. See references <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley ... l">here</a>
Bigd: Craig was found guilty of what?>>
DAR
He plead guilty to "lewd conduct" but that was because he wanted to avoid exposing the fact that he was trolling for gay sex, in public.
Bigd: I do not know what he was doing there>>
DAR
He was trying to get another man to play with his noodle.
Bigd: Blago was removed from the legislature>>
DAR
Which is controlled by democrats.
Gotta go.
D.
-------------------
<a href="http://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2006/0 ... rers/">The Top Ten Republican Adulterers</a>.
***
ADM: "I don’t know why people rip on [Franken].>>
DAR
Because he is really good at exposing conservative lies and he doesn't hold back like so many wimpy liberals. He especially focused on O'Reilly, who he busted mercilessly in his best selling book "Lying Liars" and then daily on his radio show.
But O'Reilly, the loofah meister, does provide a really big and easy target:
http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.c ... chive.html
D.
***
BLK: "the cost of malpractice, which is why we in Texas reformed our system">>
DAR
Canada's cost of settlements, per person is 1/4 that of the US's. Is that another thing we don't need to learn from them?
Oh, and nice debunk of this here:
Medical Malpractice Myths Debunked – Texas, California and Some Michigan Thrown In
"We’ve noticed a definite spike in the amount of medical malpractice-related hooey being slung about since President Obama’s big health speech this past Wednesday, so we thought we’d spend a little time today addressing a couple of the biggest whoppers—specifically, the notion that Texas and California, two states with the most Draconian restrictions on injured patients’ rights, should somehow be held out as health care “success” stories."
<a href="http://www.thepoptort.com/2009/09/medic ... .html">The rest</a>.
D.
---------------------
More:
Medical Malpractice Reform Does Not Deliver in Texas
Excerpt: "The campaign's promise, that tort reform would cause doctors to begin returning to the state's sparsely populated regions, has now been tested for four years. It has not proven to be true."
<a href="http://reno.injuryboard.com/medical-mal ... 27382">the rest...</a>
***
Bigd: I assume you wanted a conservative one:
P J O’Rourke>>
DAR
So you've got one. P.J. O'Rourke. A great comedian by the way but probably not as well known or as successful as Franken. I grew up reading his hilarious material in National Lampoon. Years later he went kind of libertarian but never socially conservative. He roasts religious nuts as hard as anyone.
"Making fun of born-again christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope." [P.J. O'Rourke]
Bigd: Dennis Miller is still successful.>>
DAR
When I peruse his wiki page I see a lot of:
"Game shows
For one month, Miller hosted Amne$ia for NBC, but due to poor ratings the show was canceled.
Sports Unfiltered on Versus...
It debuted on November 6, 2007. The show was canceled after a month."
Not being so successful with the comedy he has turned to selling chocolates:
"Everybody has to sell out at some point to make a living. I'm a family man. I sold out to make an M&M commercial." --Miller
And he's liberal on the social issues:
"I'm basically a libertarian. I'm pro-gay marriage and pro-choice, but nobody wants to hear all that.... They determine who you are based on the war." --Miller
D.
***
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - Oct)
OCTOBER 2, 2009
****
BLK: "[healthcare] It IS rather embarrassing for Canada, isn’t it D?">>
DAR
What's embarrassing? No, my comment about embarrassing was regarding you lying, all the time. You should be ashamed of your behavior.
My parents belonged to a religion that caused me to be raised in a manner that was completely non-political. For instance, when the national anthem was played in Canada I was not allowed to stand for it. So I am about as non-patriotic as it gets. I don't have much use for tribalism.
But I do like truth, getting the facts straight, and I don't like fools, the voluntarily ignorant and liars. That's why we are not likely to ever get along well.
Regarding Canada being "embarrassed," (this is going to sound patriotic but...) I was doing a little snooping around and stumbled upon this little tidbit I had forgotten about. Guess which country has the coveted position of having the won "highest quality of life" more than any other country on the planet?
D.
--------------------
"Most years attaining the highest Human Development Index (HDI), 10 out of 19 years
Field: Quality of life 2009"
Answer: Canada
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_st ... ries">List of statistically superlative countries</a>.
So I don't think they have too much to be embarrassed about.
"...a standard means of measuring human development—a concept that, according to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), refers to the process of widening the options of persons, giving them greater opportunities for education, *health care,* income, employment, etc. The HDI attempts to measure a country's development."
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Deve ... x">LINK</a>
***
BLK: "It would be funny if it were not disgusting" [Jennings not reporting statutory rape]>>
DAR
To be either of those things it would need to be true, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/200909300050">but it's not.</a>
D.
***
DAR
If Bush had lobbied to get the Olympics in Dallas and liberals had rooted against America and for other countries (they wouldn't have), they would have be considered (rightfully) unpatriotic and unamerican.
What this lays bare is the cultic priorities of these people. Once again we see that Rightwingers are far more devoted to their untenable ideologies than they are to the USA.
D.
----------------
"Soon after news broke that the International Olympic Committee had rejected Chicago’s bid to host the 2016 Olympics, which President Obama had personally lobbied for, Weekly Standard blogger John McCormack published a celebratory post on the magazine’s blog, titled “Chicago Loses! Chicago Loses!.” McCormack wrote that “Cheers erupt at WEEKLY STANDARD world headquarters.
--
But the post has now been changed. The reference to cheers have been removed and the title has been shortened to a non-exclamatory “Chicago Loses.” The current post neither acknowledges nor explains the changes that were made."
<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/02/wee ... /">LINK</a>
***
DAR
Hey Blake, can you show that Glen Beck didn’t rape and murder a girl in 1990? Let’s see your evidence.
http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/
****
BLK: SS has no money of its own, just IOUs>>
DAR
Those dollars in your pocket?
IOU's.
I wish I had a stack of $1000 bills going 151 miles in the air.
That's what SS has.
D.
***
Bigd: The premise of the rape and murder charge comes from...>>
DAR
So you've shown the progeny of this important little logic lesson but it's not clear you *get it* yourself. It's not a joke.
Where's your evidence disproving the claim about Glen Beck, or do you acknowledge, in contrast to Blake's inane mutterings, that the one who asserts has the burden of supporting their claim?
D.
***
ADM: "I can’t find the article I read showing coverage maps and arguing for the alternative plan">>
DAR
Sure, here is a <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/cernigapnimaa ... maps">good one</a>.
It references the BBC, here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8265190.stm
D.
***
Bigd: "Restrictions on gun ownership are not gun control">>
DAR
Restrictions on gun ownership are exactly gun control.
Bigd: any more than restricting what people can say and where is an infringement on free speech.>>
DAR
Restricting what people can say and where is exactly an infringement of free speech.
Some infringements we put up with, most of them we don't.
Why do you play such word games? If you want to know where to begin, you need to start with being honest with language.
Bigd: "here are restrictions that need to be in place..."
DAR
Then, you are for gun control, like everyone else on the planet (except for a few anarchists).
Bigd: "Gun control is a process designed to keep nearly all people from owning guns."
DAR
Rubbish. That's a non-standard a definition you made up.
Bigd: "Franken has stated that allowing guns in the home is dangerous so he is for keeping all of us from having them."
DAR
When did Franken say he is for keeping everyone from having guns? He didn't. In fact he has specifically stated he is not for that, at your own smear link.
Incidentally, the Brady Campaign isn't for that either.
D.
***
ADM: "I have the SCOTUS on my side. Who do you have?">>
DAR
If you have the SCOTUS on your side, you win, no exceptions. The only part of the Constitution the gun lovers need to concern themselves with is the part that tells them who gets to interpret the document (and it ain't them).
D.
***
Bigd: "I understand the Second Amendment>>
DAR
No, you have opinions about the 2nd which carry no weight whatsoever.
Bigd: the quotes of the people who wrote the Constitution and the Amendment.>>
DAR
The quotes of these dead people also carry no weight except to the extent that members of SCOTUS read them and may use their comments to form their opinions (which do matter).
Bigd: Those quotes carry more weight>>
DAR
Zero weight, not binding in any way. SCOTUS can use them or dismiss them at their discretion.
Bigd: Franken also did not understand the Fourth Amendment so why would he understand the Second?>>
DAR
Franken doesn't need to understand any of it, just like you, because neither one of your opinions carry any weight whatsoever. Zero.
The Constitution means exactly what the SCOTUS says it means, nothing more, nothing less. So says... the Constitution.
Time wasted pretending to "understand the constitution" (a meaningless statement) would be better spent trying to understand and become informed about actual SCOTUS decisions, because, with regard to the Constitution, those decisions are the ONLY thing matters.
D.
***
Bigd: "The gun control that liberals (by and large) support is an outright ban or laws so restrictive that it prevents ownership."
DAR
Not true. Not *even* Brady supports this.
D.
----------------
http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/
***
Bigd: "Did Jennings fail to report it and if so, then he committed a crime.">>
DAR
Nope. This just in:
Fox News Corrects False Claims About Gay Obama Education Adviser — Will Hannity Do The Same?
"Fox News ended up having to issue an "online correction of the false claims the outlet had been making while waging a high-profile assault on Kevin Jennings," the Department of Education official currently being targeted by the right wing. The specific claim involved an accusation that Jennings had covered up "statutory rape," based on an incident when Jennings was a teacher, when a "teenager confided in him about having sex with a stranger and Jennings didn't report it to authorities."
Media Matters ended up proving there was no basis to the claim. Via The Plum Line:
On Friday Media Matters produced what it said was the kid's drivers license, showing that the kid was 16, legal age of consent in Massachuttes, and also produced a Facebook exchange that seemed to show that a Fox News reporter had been informed directly by the kid himself that they'd misrepresented his age.
<a href="http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/polit ... /">LINK</a>
***
Bigd: "Given Jennings’ kinship with NAMBLA...">>
DAR
More right-wing rubbish <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/200910020016">already smacked down</a>.
Repeat right-wing smears with caution, they are usually false.
D.
---------------------
"Hay wrote in the Gay Community News (retrieved from Nexis) in 1994, "I am not a member of NAMBLA, nor would it ever have been my inclination to be one."
**
Bigd:
[quote] "Exclusive News from the Muffled Oar:
The Muffled Oar has learned..."
DAR
Extraordinary claim.
Where's the evidence?
Bigd: "Also NRO"
DAR
Which says:
"According to a story at The Muffled Oar website..."
echo echo echo...
D.
***
Bigd: "I do not believe in gun control. I believe that the mentally ill and criminals should not be allowed to own guns">>
DAR
That's gun control.
Bigd: All the other restrictions I do not agree with.>>
DAR
Thank you for using "gun control" and "restrictions" synonymously.
You do not agree with any other restrictions?
So for you:
Kindergartners can take guns to school?
Full-auto available to the public?
I can mount a full-auto 50 cal. on my roof and aim it at my neighbor?
Anyone can carry any weapon in court houses, hospitals, schools etc?
How about howitzers? Bazookas? They're "arms."
Bigd: Brady wants to ban handguns>>
DAR
No, they don't.
Bigd: and wants an assault weapons ban which is a BS ban. It deals with appearance and not firepower.>>
DAR
Assault weapons are designed for shooting and killing people quickly and do present special problems with regard to high velocity bullets which cause more devastating wounds. All carefully explained here:
http://bradycampaign.org/legislation/msassaultweapons
Why are you afraid of a link to Brady? [note: Bigd removed any links to the "The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence"]
Bigd: Franken... changed his tune when he ran for office.>>
DAR
You said: "Franken... is for keeping all of us from having them [guns]."
That's not true. You shouldn't say things that aren't true.
Bigd: liberals... want a total ban on guns.>>
DAR
Absurd.
Bigd: You stated that what the SCOTUS says goes and it matters not what others say.>>
DAR
With regard to interpreting the Constitution, absolutely right.
Bigd: So when you say Bush stole the 2000 election, you are just lying because he was legally elected.>>
DAR
No, that doesn't follow. You presume that the narrow question the SCOTUS ruled on is the only legitimate question/concern about that election. But that's obviously not true. Two examples. Consider:
3/12/01 - CNN <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/ ... reports<a/> that the confusing butterfly ballot used in Florida's Palm Beach County cost Gore 6,607 votes. This means that Gore actually beat Bush in Florida by 6,070 votes. Thus Gore won BOTH the popular vote and, by rights, the Electoral College vote.
So one could say in this regard, Bush "stole" the election (without any effort or intent on his part).
Also:
1/27/01 - <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/sto ... .html">CNN reports</a> that "An analysis of a portion of November's votes in Florida for president shows those for Al Gore were far more likely to be disqualified because of so-called overvoting than ballots cast for George W. Bush." This add weight to the argument that Bush did not win the election on the basis of votes cast, but only on votes counted."
Bigd: "the Supreme Court ruled that... a statewide recount of ballots was unconstitutional,>>
DAR
And according to the rules, that is the correct interpretation of the Constitution, in this narrow regard. That is their right. And no one else's opinion matters or has any weight.
Bigd: Bush won fair and square.>>
DAR
Sorry, that question wasn't before the court, but rather only the constitutionality of the state courts decision regarding a statewide recount. That's it.
Bigd: "you should... admit he was the LEGALLY elected president.>>
DAR
I didn't say he wasn't "legally elected president." It's possible to use the word "stole" in something other than a legal sense. If I were to say that some forfeiture laws seem to allow the state to steal your stuff, I wouldn't be speaking of the "legal" sense. I would say, considering more people voted for him in the nation and Florida, Gore was robbed (and we were too).
D.
***
BARB: "all he has done is make a fool of the US to other countries. I think he will... go out as the most hated.>>
DAR
Let's see how that's going so far:
"Graphs comparing the approval ratings of presidents George W. Bush in 2008 and Barack Obama in 2009 evoke the trajectory of a pogo stick: BAM! 12 percent for Bush in Germany. BOING! 92 percent for Obama. BAM! 11 percent for Bush in France. BOING! 88 percent for Obama. Overall, the positive reaction to the U.S. president has quadrupled from when the White House changed hands to when the survey was conducted in June.
The gap was the largest ever seen in any category in the report’s eight-year history and shocked even the most optimistic Obama supporters, said Ron Asmus, director of GMF’s Brussels office. “No one thought this kind of bounce was possible,” he marveled. “People were so pessimistic after Bush and said ‘okay, 10, 20 percent would be good.’ But instead you got 60, 70 points. These things don’t happen but once a century!”
<a href="http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/euro ... e">LINK</a>.
Nope, I guess it's just you Barbara (and a few others).
D.
***
ROB: "All Obama has done is blame our nation for everything bad that has ever happened">>
DAR
If you would like to back up your charge with specific examples, I would be glad to see them. You will find that you are just exaggerating and your examples don't hold up.
Apologizing for mistakes made (and GWB made a lot of them on America's behalf), is a sign of strength (and maturity), not weakness.
D.
-----------------
"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein."
—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 25, 2004
***
Bigd: "or compare the beginnings of each" [Bush and Obama terms]>>
DAR
Bush never had very high numbers until he got the artificial 9/11 bump. Obama wins any comparison, here (and especially abroad), in the "beginning." And that's considering GW inherited peace and prosperity while Obama was handed the second republican Great Depression (economy bleeding 700k jobs per month).
Unless he attacks the wrong country (again) or accidentally nukes somebody, it's almost inconceivable that he could finish with lower numbers, here or abroad, than Bush's record breakers.
D.
***
Bigd: "Democrats were in charge when it tanked">>
DAR
Nope. They really didn't push much on anything (rather choosing to wait and let Bush finish his fine job). And when they DID step up and try to accomplish some good, they were met with:
"Republicans Break All Time Filibuster Record
December 19, 2008
By Lou Gerber, Legislative Director
Republicans last night broke the all-time Senate record for filibusters in a two-year term when they forced the 62nd cloture vote of this session on the omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 2764.
The previous record of 61 cloture votes in a two-year term was set in 2001-2002, the last time the GOP comprised the minority in the Senate.
The fact that the new record for legislative obstruction was set in less than one session would be similar to Roger Maris hitting 61 home runs before the mid-season break for the all-star game, instead of during the 162 game baseball season.
From refusing to allow the Senate to vote on the merits of the Employee Free Choice Act, to denying a roll call on the substance of the prescription drug bill, to preventing a vote on legislation implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, GOP Senators impeded solutions to pressing problems.
Under Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Republican Senators have instituted "new math" in which 60 votes have replaced 51 votes as the required majority to pass legislation.
...Republican Senators have earned a new name for the venerable acronym GOP - - the Great Obstruction Party!
<a href="http://www.cwa-legislative.org/news/rep ... l">LINK</a>.
Bigd: Artificial bump for 9/11?>>
DAR
You want to question that? Perhaps a picture can help you out.
Bigd:"no one wants to dis the first black man in the White House?">>
DAR
"No one?" Are you sentient? Huffing the glue again? You have an entire cable station devoted to dissing the black man in the White House.
Bigd: "When inflation [happens] he will be very popular.>>
DAR
I think you meant "unpopular."
And when froggies have wings, they won't have to bump their bottoms so hard when they hop down the road.
D.
---------------
Study: Bush administration blocked efforts to prevent housing crisis.
***
Obama [quote]: "I’ve now been in 57 states">>
DAR
That you would have to appeal to this pathetic example of him accidentally saying "57" instead of "47" shows just how weak the position is for those who might try to compare the Bush gaffe machine, with Obama.
Hey, when are they going to come out with the Obama Gaffe-a-Day calendar like I had for Bush? Shoot, Bush was putting out at least a howler per day. Every day, for years. And I'm not talking about misstating a number. That would never make any decent gaffe list.
Do you think they will ever make a gaffe a day calendar for Obama? No, I don't either. Do you know why? I do.
D.
-------------------
"I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009
<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/76886/">The Complete Bushisms</a>.
***
Bigd: "Law abiding people do not commit gun crimes.>>
DAR
Nice tautology. And actually, they do. All the time, every day. Then they get moved into the "not law abiding" column. Everyone starts in the law abiding column.
Bigd: The more laws we enact the tougher it gets for law abiding people to get guns.>>
DAR
Not really. They are all subverted and made nearly meaningless by the gun show loophole, private sales and the internet.
And now this Exclusive: Videos show gun-show vendors flouting the law.
Bigd: Criminals will get them no matter what.>>
DAR
Funny they don't manage to get them very much in Britain and Canada.
"A British citizen is still 50 times less likely to be a victim of gun homicide than an American."
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm
Bigd: "Put people who commit crimes in jail and the crime rate will drop.">>
DAR
It's pretty clear that failing to lock up enough people is not the problem. Consider:
***
United States once again tops the planet in the percentage of it citizenry incarcerated:
* The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, 756 per 100,000 of the national population, followed by Russia (629), Rwanda (604), St Kitts & Nevis (588), Cuba (c.531). [Canada's rate is 131 --Dar]
* ...a world prison population rate of 145 per 100,000....
At last count, Texas prisons incarcerated more than 1,000 prisoners per every 100,000 residents. About one out of every 22 adult Texans is in prison, in jail, on probation or on parole compared to one out of 31 nationally."
LINK
Bigd: How is the gun ban in Chicago working?>>
DAR
Any localized gun ban is a joke and completely subverted by a simple drive over a state line and what I mentioned above.
Bigd: Ask Brady why there are a heck of a lot more gun crimes there than in Texas…>>
DAR
I don't know that that's true, but they would say it's the guns.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)." --Eddie Izzard
D.
------------------
ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations,...
Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent,...
...gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia."
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf
***
Bigd: Very few murders committed by people with sniper rifles and “assault” weapons.>>
DAR
Not true:
Report: "Assault Weapons: Mass Produced Mayhem, documents the concerns of police chiefs from around the country on the increasing problem of assault weapons since 2004 (p. 3). For example, during the last year of the ban (2004), Miami police reported that 4 percent of homicides were committed with assault weapons. In 2007, 20 percent were committed with assault weapons (Miami Herald, 2007)."
--Brady, link forbidden
20% of murders. How is that "very few"?
Bigd: Kindergartners are not allowed by age,>>
DAR
We agree. Kindergartners should have their 2nd amendment rights infringed.
Bigd: Full auto is allowed with a federal firearms license.>>
DAR
You didn't answer the question. Do you think everyone should have access to full auto weapons just like semi-auto is now? I don't.
Bigd: if those are the laws, I can live with them.>>
DAR
So you accept many common sense infringements upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Good.
Bigd: You and I just don’t see gun control the same way.>>
DAR
Well, we both believe in restrictions and limitations on the 2nd, but differ on where to draw the lines.
Also, I believe in telling the unvarnished truth about the death and destruction that the US suffers due to it's extremely permissive gun laws.
I am thinking of getting a CCW for my handgun. Haven't gotten around to it yet.
D.
----------------
"In 2004, firearms were used to murder 56 people in Australia, 184 people in Canada, 73 people in England and Wales, 5 people in New Zealand, and 37 people in Sweden.
In comparison, firearms were used to murder 11,344 in the United States."
--WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports.
***
[GW denier citation]
DAR
Did you read little further down on your own link grasshopper? I did.
***
"This Just Out: Smoking Improves Human Health
This "noted" geologist has a master's degree in geology, has never done any research in climate science, and represents and works for the petroleum industry. This is just a continuation of the well-funded intentional misinformation campaign to discredit the very well established and agreed upon effects of human activity, primarily CO2 output, on global climate. If you want to read a book about this well funded campaign, who is behind it, and what their goals are, read James Hoggan's recently published book "Climate Cover Up:The Crusade to Deny Global Warming". The "science" behind global warming deniers is the same as the "science" that was behind the tobacco industry's attempts to show that smoking had no negative effects on human health. As with tobacco, these well funded "scientists" will blather on until they are finally drowned out by reality (the link to the tobacco industry's failed campaign is covered in Chapter 1 of Hoggan's book. Invariably the
"scientists" put forward by the denier industry are, like Leighton Seward, not climate scientists, not actively engaged in research, and full of nutty, erroneous ideas. Too bad the rest of the world will suffer from their greed-motivated attempts to spread ignorance. There is a reason that the public has become more uncertain as the science has become more certain, and is has nothing to do with science."
DAR
Well said, except I would go further. The GW deniers reached the level that the "tobacco doesn't cause cancer" group has, about ten years ago. The smart ones don't deny it anymore but make other excuses for why we shouldn't do anything.
If you have any assertions regarding climate change that you think you can defend, do so. Otherwise, your material isn't worth reading, or responding to and when it hasn't been refuted in this forum already, it falls of it's own weight. And that's unfortunate.
D.
***
BLK: reach to your..., and you can stroke..., and if he... pretty soon you have a circle jerk>>
DAR
Don't worry, if I ever want to get involved in a circle jerk, I will certainly look to you. You're the best. We all have areas that we specialize in.
D.
***
Bigd: The term assault rifle... nothing to do with functionality.>>
DAR
Their higher velocity rounds have greater lethality (which is their purpose).
Bigd: If gun control works then why are there any murders in the countries that ban them?>>
DAR
Countries with moderate to strict gun control have less murders (which has other causes too) and a TINY fraction of the gun death/murder/maiming/accidents that the US suffers. For instance, the US had:
"52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries... in 2000."
A truly incredible number.
While the US had "three children per day, on average, die in accidental handgun incidents in the United States from 2000 to 2005" <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/04/21/fo ... on">CDC</a>.
Canada had "...just six people under age 25 died in gun accidents (2002)." <a href="http://www.lufa.ca/news/news_item.asp?N ... 4">Link</a>
That's comparing just US children, to Canadians up to age 24 and it's still 1,095... to 6. Maybe it's the guns?
Bigd: How many of the people are in places with tough gun bans like say, Chicago>>
DAR
As explained, any local gun bans are meaningless and easily and completely subverted. They could only be effective if enforced nationwide.
Bigd: I have friends in the UK and they can tell you where to get the guns.>>
DAR
Well, those guns aren't amounting to much:
"In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population." <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... 2">Link</a>.
How many did the US have in 2005 alone? 10,100. That's over 400x greater. Yet we are only 5x the population. Maybe it's the guns?
Bigd: And comparing gun murders is misleading.>>
DAR
It can be, that's why I am careful not to make that mistake. Any way you slice it, murders, accidents, suicides, non-fatal incidents... if guns are involved, more people die, more people get hurt. And the US is a prime and distinguished example.
Bigd: How many murders by gun occur in Israel?>>
DAR
In '93, 0.72 per 100k.
The US was 3.72 per 100k, in '99.
Canada was 0.76, in 1992.
Do remember the US is about 52 times larger than tiny Israel, which is a bit of a special situation.
If you compare the US to it's comparable peer countries, the result is clear. The US pays a terrible and disproportionate price in death and destruction due to it's lack of gun control. The example below being perhaps the most revealing.
D.
-------------------
“…the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries COMBINED. American children are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm accident than children in these other countries.”
--Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rates of homicide, suicide, and firearm-related deaths among children in 26 industrialized countries. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997; 46 :101 –105
<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtm ... m">LINK</a>.
***
[Ridicule about Obama winning Peace Prize]
DAR
Wow. So nice to see such an honor bestowed upon an American again. You would think people who are proud of American would be thankful.
Interesting bits and a few reasons:
"Obama's election and foreign policy moves caused a dramatic improvement in the image of the U.S. around the world. A 25-nation poll of 27,000 people released in July by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found double-digit boosts to the percentage of people viewing the U.S. favorably in countries around the world. That indicator had plunged across the world under President George W. Bush.
The Nobel committee praised Obama's creation of "a new climate in international politics" and said he had returned multilateral diplomacy and institutions like the U.N. to the center of the world stage.
"You have to remember that the world has been in a pretty dangerous phase," Jagland said. "And anybody who can contribute to getting the world out of this situation deserves a Nobel Peace Prize."
Obama is the third sitting U.S. president to win the award: President Theodore Roosevelt won in 1906 and President Woodrow Wilson was awarded the prize in 1919.
Former Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, said Obama has already provided outstanding leadership in the effort to prevent nuclear proliferation.
"In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself," ElBaradei said. "He has shown an unshakeable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts. He has reached out across divides and made clear that he sees the world as one human family, regardless of religion, race or ethnicity."
In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_nobel_peace">Link</a>
Congratulations to President Obama and America for this honor.
The only people not happy it seems? Some Muslims, some republicans.
Bit:
"Upon being called by ABC News at 5:45 ET this morning, a White House aide said, "This better be good."
When told by ABC News that the president had won the Nobel Peace Prize, the aide replied: "Oh, that is good."
D.
---------------
"[A] wonderful recognition of Obama's effort to reach out to the Arab world after years of hostility." --Archbishop Desmond Tutu
****
BLK: "[healthcare] It IS rather embarrassing for Canada, isn’t it D?">>
DAR
What's embarrassing? No, my comment about embarrassing was regarding you lying, all the time. You should be ashamed of your behavior.
My parents belonged to a religion that caused me to be raised in a manner that was completely non-political. For instance, when the national anthem was played in Canada I was not allowed to stand for it. So I am about as non-patriotic as it gets. I don't have much use for tribalism.
But I do like truth, getting the facts straight, and I don't like fools, the voluntarily ignorant and liars. That's why we are not likely to ever get along well.
Regarding Canada being "embarrassed," (this is going to sound patriotic but...) I was doing a little snooping around and stumbled upon this little tidbit I had forgotten about. Guess which country has the coveted position of having the won "highest quality of life" more than any other country on the planet?
D.
--------------------
"Most years attaining the highest Human Development Index (HDI), 10 out of 19 years
Field: Quality of life 2009"
Answer: Canada
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_st ... ries">List of statistically superlative countries</a>.
So I don't think they have too much to be embarrassed about.
"...a standard means of measuring human development—a concept that, according to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), refers to the process of widening the options of persons, giving them greater opportunities for education, *health care,* income, employment, etc. The HDI attempts to measure a country's development."
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Deve ... x">LINK</a>
***
BLK: "It would be funny if it were not disgusting" [Jennings not reporting statutory rape]>>
DAR
To be either of those things it would need to be true, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/200909300050">but it's not.</a>
D.
***
DAR
If Bush had lobbied to get the Olympics in Dallas and liberals had rooted against America and for other countries (they wouldn't have), they would have be considered (rightfully) unpatriotic and unamerican.
What this lays bare is the cultic priorities of these people. Once again we see that Rightwingers are far more devoted to their untenable ideologies than they are to the USA.
D.
----------------
"Soon after news broke that the International Olympic Committee had rejected Chicago’s bid to host the 2016 Olympics, which President Obama had personally lobbied for, Weekly Standard blogger John McCormack published a celebratory post on the magazine’s blog, titled “Chicago Loses! Chicago Loses!.” McCormack wrote that “Cheers erupt at WEEKLY STANDARD world headquarters.
--
But the post has now been changed. The reference to cheers have been removed and the title has been shortened to a non-exclamatory “Chicago Loses.” The current post neither acknowledges nor explains the changes that were made."
<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/02/wee ... /">LINK</a>
***
DAR
Hey Blake, can you show that Glen Beck didn’t rape and murder a girl in 1990? Let’s see your evidence.
http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/
****
BLK: SS has no money of its own, just IOUs>>
DAR
Those dollars in your pocket?
IOU's.
I wish I had a stack of $1000 bills going 151 miles in the air.
That's what SS has.
D.
***
Bigd: The premise of the rape and murder charge comes from...>>
DAR
So you've shown the progeny of this important little logic lesson but it's not clear you *get it* yourself. It's not a joke.
Where's your evidence disproving the claim about Glen Beck, or do you acknowledge, in contrast to Blake's inane mutterings, that the one who asserts has the burden of supporting their claim?
D.
***
ADM: "I can’t find the article I read showing coverage maps and arguing for the alternative plan">>
DAR
Sure, here is a <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/cernigapnimaa ... maps">good one</a>.
It references the BBC, here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8265190.stm
D.
***
Bigd: "Restrictions on gun ownership are not gun control">>
DAR
Restrictions on gun ownership are exactly gun control.
Bigd: any more than restricting what people can say and where is an infringement on free speech.>>
DAR
Restricting what people can say and where is exactly an infringement of free speech.
Some infringements we put up with, most of them we don't.
Why do you play such word games? If you want to know where to begin, you need to start with being honest with language.
Bigd: "here are restrictions that need to be in place..."
DAR
Then, you are for gun control, like everyone else on the planet (except for a few anarchists).
Bigd: "Gun control is a process designed to keep nearly all people from owning guns."
DAR
Rubbish. That's a non-standard a definition you made up.
Bigd: "Franken has stated that allowing guns in the home is dangerous so he is for keeping all of us from having them."
DAR
When did Franken say he is for keeping everyone from having guns? He didn't. In fact he has specifically stated he is not for that, at your own smear link.
Incidentally, the Brady Campaign isn't for that either.
D.
***
ADM: "I have the SCOTUS on my side. Who do you have?">>
DAR
If you have the SCOTUS on your side, you win, no exceptions. The only part of the Constitution the gun lovers need to concern themselves with is the part that tells them who gets to interpret the document (and it ain't them).
D.
***
Bigd: "I understand the Second Amendment>>
DAR
No, you have opinions about the 2nd which carry no weight whatsoever.
Bigd: the quotes of the people who wrote the Constitution and the Amendment.>>
DAR
The quotes of these dead people also carry no weight except to the extent that members of SCOTUS read them and may use their comments to form their opinions (which do matter).
Bigd: Those quotes carry more weight>>
DAR
Zero weight, not binding in any way. SCOTUS can use them or dismiss them at their discretion.
Bigd: Franken also did not understand the Fourth Amendment so why would he understand the Second?>>
DAR
Franken doesn't need to understand any of it, just like you, because neither one of your opinions carry any weight whatsoever. Zero.
The Constitution means exactly what the SCOTUS says it means, nothing more, nothing less. So says... the Constitution.
Time wasted pretending to "understand the constitution" (a meaningless statement) would be better spent trying to understand and become informed about actual SCOTUS decisions, because, with regard to the Constitution, those decisions are the ONLY thing matters.
D.
***
Bigd: "The gun control that liberals (by and large) support is an outright ban or laws so restrictive that it prevents ownership."
DAR
Not true. Not *even* Brady supports this.
D.
----------------
http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/
***
Bigd: "Did Jennings fail to report it and if so, then he committed a crime.">>
DAR
Nope. This just in:
Fox News Corrects False Claims About Gay Obama Education Adviser — Will Hannity Do The Same?
"Fox News ended up having to issue an "online correction of the false claims the outlet had been making while waging a high-profile assault on Kevin Jennings," the Department of Education official currently being targeted by the right wing. The specific claim involved an accusation that Jennings had covered up "statutory rape," based on an incident when Jennings was a teacher, when a "teenager confided in him about having sex with a stranger and Jennings didn't report it to authorities."
Media Matters ended up proving there was no basis to the claim. Via The Plum Line:
On Friday Media Matters produced what it said was the kid's drivers license, showing that the kid was 16, legal age of consent in Massachuttes, and also produced a Facebook exchange that seemed to show that a Fox News reporter had been informed directly by the kid himself that they'd misrepresented his age.
<a href="http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/polit ... /">LINK</a>
***
Bigd: "Given Jennings’ kinship with NAMBLA...">>
DAR
More right-wing rubbish <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/200910020016">already smacked down</a>.
Repeat right-wing smears with caution, they are usually false.
D.
---------------------
"Hay wrote in the Gay Community News (retrieved from Nexis) in 1994, "I am not a member of NAMBLA, nor would it ever have been my inclination to be one."
**
Bigd:
[quote] "Exclusive News from the Muffled Oar:
The Muffled Oar has learned..."
DAR
Extraordinary claim.
Where's the evidence?
Bigd: "Also NRO"
DAR
Which says:
"According to a story at The Muffled Oar website..."
echo echo echo...
D.
***
Bigd: "I do not believe in gun control. I believe that the mentally ill and criminals should not be allowed to own guns">>
DAR
That's gun control.
Bigd: All the other restrictions I do not agree with.>>
DAR
Thank you for using "gun control" and "restrictions" synonymously.
You do not agree with any other restrictions?
So for you:
Kindergartners can take guns to school?
Full-auto available to the public?
I can mount a full-auto 50 cal. on my roof and aim it at my neighbor?
Anyone can carry any weapon in court houses, hospitals, schools etc?
How about howitzers? Bazookas? They're "arms."
Bigd: Brady wants to ban handguns>>
DAR
No, they don't.
Bigd: and wants an assault weapons ban which is a BS ban. It deals with appearance and not firepower.>>
DAR
Assault weapons are designed for shooting and killing people quickly and do present special problems with regard to high velocity bullets which cause more devastating wounds. All carefully explained here:
http://bradycampaign.org/legislation/msassaultweapons
Why are you afraid of a link to Brady? [note: Bigd removed any links to the "The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence"]
Bigd: Franken... changed his tune when he ran for office.>>
DAR
You said: "Franken... is for keeping all of us from having them [guns]."
That's not true. You shouldn't say things that aren't true.
Bigd: liberals... want a total ban on guns.>>
DAR
Absurd.
Bigd: You stated that what the SCOTUS says goes and it matters not what others say.>>
DAR
With regard to interpreting the Constitution, absolutely right.
Bigd: So when you say Bush stole the 2000 election, you are just lying because he was legally elected.>>
DAR
No, that doesn't follow. You presume that the narrow question the SCOTUS ruled on is the only legitimate question/concern about that election. But that's obviously not true. Two examples. Consider:
3/12/01 - CNN <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/ ... reports<a/> that the confusing butterfly ballot used in Florida's Palm Beach County cost Gore 6,607 votes. This means that Gore actually beat Bush in Florida by 6,070 votes. Thus Gore won BOTH the popular vote and, by rights, the Electoral College vote.
So one could say in this regard, Bush "stole" the election (without any effort or intent on his part).
Also:
1/27/01 - <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/sto ... .html">CNN reports</a> that "An analysis of a portion of November's votes in Florida for president shows those for Al Gore were far more likely to be disqualified because of so-called overvoting than ballots cast for George W. Bush." This add weight to the argument that Bush did not win the election on the basis of votes cast, but only on votes counted."
Bigd: "the Supreme Court ruled that... a statewide recount of ballots was unconstitutional,>>
DAR
And according to the rules, that is the correct interpretation of the Constitution, in this narrow regard. That is their right. And no one else's opinion matters or has any weight.
Bigd: Bush won fair and square.>>
DAR
Sorry, that question wasn't before the court, but rather only the constitutionality of the state courts decision regarding a statewide recount. That's it.
Bigd: "you should... admit he was the LEGALLY elected president.>>
DAR
I didn't say he wasn't "legally elected president." It's possible to use the word "stole" in something other than a legal sense. If I were to say that some forfeiture laws seem to allow the state to steal your stuff, I wouldn't be speaking of the "legal" sense. I would say, considering more people voted for him in the nation and Florida, Gore was robbed (and we were too).
D.
***
BARB: "all he has done is make a fool of the US to other countries. I think he will... go out as the most hated.>>
DAR
Let's see how that's going so far:
"Graphs comparing the approval ratings of presidents George W. Bush in 2008 and Barack Obama in 2009 evoke the trajectory of a pogo stick: BAM! 12 percent for Bush in Germany. BOING! 92 percent for Obama. BAM! 11 percent for Bush in France. BOING! 88 percent for Obama. Overall, the positive reaction to the U.S. president has quadrupled from when the White House changed hands to when the survey was conducted in June.
The gap was the largest ever seen in any category in the report’s eight-year history and shocked even the most optimistic Obama supporters, said Ron Asmus, director of GMF’s Brussels office. “No one thought this kind of bounce was possible,” he marveled. “People were so pessimistic after Bush and said ‘okay, 10, 20 percent would be good.’ But instead you got 60, 70 points. These things don’t happen but once a century!”
<a href="http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/euro ... e">LINK</a>.
Nope, I guess it's just you Barbara (and a few others).
D.
***
ROB: "All Obama has done is blame our nation for everything bad that has ever happened">>
DAR
If you would like to back up your charge with specific examples, I would be glad to see them. You will find that you are just exaggerating and your examples don't hold up.
Apologizing for mistakes made (and GWB made a lot of them on America's behalf), is a sign of strength (and maturity), not weakness.
D.
-----------------
"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein."
—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 25, 2004
***
Bigd: "or compare the beginnings of each" [Bush and Obama terms]>>
DAR
Bush never had very high numbers until he got the artificial 9/11 bump. Obama wins any comparison, here (and especially abroad), in the "beginning." And that's considering GW inherited peace and prosperity while Obama was handed the second republican Great Depression (economy bleeding 700k jobs per month).
Unless he attacks the wrong country (again) or accidentally nukes somebody, it's almost inconceivable that he could finish with lower numbers, here or abroad, than Bush's record breakers.
D.
***
Bigd: "Democrats were in charge when it tanked">>
DAR
Nope. They really didn't push much on anything (rather choosing to wait and let Bush finish his fine job). And when they DID step up and try to accomplish some good, they were met with:
"Republicans Break All Time Filibuster Record
December 19, 2008
By Lou Gerber, Legislative Director
Republicans last night broke the all-time Senate record for filibusters in a two-year term when they forced the 62nd cloture vote of this session on the omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 2764.
The previous record of 61 cloture votes in a two-year term was set in 2001-2002, the last time the GOP comprised the minority in the Senate.
The fact that the new record for legislative obstruction was set in less than one session would be similar to Roger Maris hitting 61 home runs before the mid-season break for the all-star game, instead of during the 162 game baseball season.
From refusing to allow the Senate to vote on the merits of the Employee Free Choice Act, to denying a roll call on the substance of the prescription drug bill, to preventing a vote on legislation implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, GOP Senators impeded solutions to pressing problems.
Under Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Republican Senators have instituted "new math" in which 60 votes have replaced 51 votes as the required majority to pass legislation.
...Republican Senators have earned a new name for the venerable acronym GOP - - the Great Obstruction Party!
<a href="http://www.cwa-legislative.org/news/rep ... l">LINK</a>.
Bigd: Artificial bump for 9/11?>>
DAR
You want to question that? Perhaps a picture can help you out.
Bigd:"no one wants to dis the first black man in the White House?">>
DAR
"No one?" Are you sentient? Huffing the glue again? You have an entire cable station devoted to dissing the black man in the White House.
Bigd: "When inflation [happens] he will be very popular.>>
DAR
I think you meant "unpopular."
And when froggies have wings, they won't have to bump their bottoms so hard when they hop down the road.
D.
---------------
Study: Bush administration blocked efforts to prevent housing crisis.
***
Obama [quote]: "I’ve now been in 57 states">>
DAR
That you would have to appeal to this pathetic example of him accidentally saying "57" instead of "47" shows just how weak the position is for those who might try to compare the Bush gaffe machine, with Obama.
Hey, when are they going to come out with the Obama Gaffe-a-Day calendar like I had for Bush? Shoot, Bush was putting out at least a howler per day. Every day, for years. And I'm not talking about misstating a number. That would never make any decent gaffe list.
Do you think they will ever make a gaffe a day calendar for Obama? No, I don't either. Do you know why? I do.
D.
-------------------
"I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009
<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/76886/">The Complete Bushisms</a>.
***
Bigd: "Law abiding people do not commit gun crimes.>>
DAR
Nice tautology. And actually, they do. All the time, every day. Then they get moved into the "not law abiding" column. Everyone starts in the law abiding column.
Bigd: The more laws we enact the tougher it gets for law abiding people to get guns.>>
DAR
Not really. They are all subverted and made nearly meaningless by the gun show loophole, private sales and the internet.
And now this Exclusive: Videos show gun-show vendors flouting the law.
Bigd: Criminals will get them no matter what.>>
DAR
Funny they don't manage to get them very much in Britain and Canada.
"A British citizen is still 50 times less likely to be a victim of gun homicide than an American."
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm
Bigd: "Put people who commit crimes in jail and the crime rate will drop.">>
DAR
It's pretty clear that failing to lock up enough people is not the problem. Consider:
***
United States once again tops the planet in the percentage of it citizenry incarcerated:
* The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, 756 per 100,000 of the national population, followed by Russia (629), Rwanda (604), St Kitts & Nevis (588), Cuba (c.531). [Canada's rate is 131 --Dar]
* ...a world prison population rate of 145 per 100,000....
At last count, Texas prisons incarcerated more than 1,000 prisoners per every 100,000 residents. About one out of every 22 adult Texans is in prison, in jail, on probation or on parole compared to one out of 31 nationally."
LINK
Bigd: How is the gun ban in Chicago working?>>
DAR
Any localized gun ban is a joke and completely subverted by a simple drive over a state line and what I mentioned above.
Bigd: Ask Brady why there are a heck of a lot more gun crimes there than in Texas…>>
DAR
I don't know that that's true, but they would say it's the guns.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)." --Eddie Izzard
D.
------------------
ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations,...
Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent,...
...gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia."
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf
***
Bigd: Very few murders committed by people with sniper rifles and “assault” weapons.>>
DAR
Not true:
Report: "Assault Weapons: Mass Produced Mayhem, documents the concerns of police chiefs from around the country on the increasing problem of assault weapons since 2004 (p. 3). For example, during the last year of the ban (2004), Miami police reported that 4 percent of homicides were committed with assault weapons. In 2007, 20 percent were committed with assault weapons (Miami Herald, 2007)."
--Brady, link forbidden
20% of murders. How is that "very few"?
Bigd: Kindergartners are not allowed by age,>>
DAR
We agree. Kindergartners should have their 2nd amendment rights infringed.
Bigd: Full auto is allowed with a federal firearms license.>>
DAR
You didn't answer the question. Do you think everyone should have access to full auto weapons just like semi-auto is now? I don't.
Bigd: if those are the laws, I can live with them.>>
DAR
So you accept many common sense infringements upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Good.
Bigd: You and I just don’t see gun control the same way.>>
DAR
Well, we both believe in restrictions and limitations on the 2nd, but differ on where to draw the lines.
Also, I believe in telling the unvarnished truth about the death and destruction that the US suffers due to it's extremely permissive gun laws.
I am thinking of getting a CCW for my handgun. Haven't gotten around to it yet.
D.
----------------
"In 2004, firearms were used to murder 56 people in Australia, 184 people in Canada, 73 people in England and Wales, 5 people in New Zealand, and 37 people in Sweden.
In comparison, firearms were used to murder 11,344 in the United States."
--WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports.
***
[GW denier citation]
DAR
Did you read little further down on your own link grasshopper? I did.
***
"This Just Out: Smoking Improves Human Health
This "noted" geologist has a master's degree in geology, has never done any research in climate science, and represents and works for the petroleum industry. This is just a continuation of the well-funded intentional misinformation campaign to discredit the very well established and agreed upon effects of human activity, primarily CO2 output, on global climate. If you want to read a book about this well funded campaign, who is behind it, and what their goals are, read James Hoggan's recently published book "Climate Cover Up:The Crusade to Deny Global Warming". The "science" behind global warming deniers is the same as the "science" that was behind the tobacco industry's attempts to show that smoking had no negative effects on human health. As with tobacco, these well funded "scientists" will blather on until they are finally drowned out by reality (the link to the tobacco industry's failed campaign is covered in Chapter 1 of Hoggan's book. Invariably the
"scientists" put forward by the denier industry are, like Leighton Seward, not climate scientists, not actively engaged in research, and full of nutty, erroneous ideas. Too bad the rest of the world will suffer from their greed-motivated attempts to spread ignorance. There is a reason that the public has become more uncertain as the science has become more certain, and is has nothing to do with science."
DAR
Well said, except I would go further. The GW deniers reached the level that the "tobacco doesn't cause cancer" group has, about ten years ago. The smart ones don't deny it anymore but make other excuses for why we shouldn't do anything.
If you have any assertions regarding climate change that you think you can defend, do so. Otherwise, your material isn't worth reading, or responding to and when it hasn't been refuted in this forum already, it falls of it's own weight. And that's unfortunate.
D.
***
BLK: reach to your..., and you can stroke..., and if he... pretty soon you have a circle jerk>>
DAR
Don't worry, if I ever want to get involved in a circle jerk, I will certainly look to you. You're the best. We all have areas that we specialize in.
D.
***
Bigd: The term assault rifle... nothing to do with functionality.>>
DAR
Their higher velocity rounds have greater lethality (which is their purpose).
Bigd: If gun control works then why are there any murders in the countries that ban them?>>
DAR
Countries with moderate to strict gun control have less murders (which has other causes too) and a TINY fraction of the gun death/murder/maiming/accidents that the US suffers. For instance, the US had:
"52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries... in 2000."
A truly incredible number.
While the US had "three children per day, on average, die in accidental handgun incidents in the United States from 2000 to 2005" <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/04/21/fo ... on">CDC</a>.
Canada had "...just six people under age 25 died in gun accidents (2002)." <a href="http://www.lufa.ca/news/news_item.asp?N ... 4">Link</a>
That's comparing just US children, to Canadians up to age 24 and it's still 1,095... to 6. Maybe it's the guns?
Bigd: How many of the people are in places with tough gun bans like say, Chicago>>
DAR
As explained, any local gun bans are meaningless and easily and completely subverted. They could only be effective if enforced nationwide.
Bigd: I have friends in the UK and they can tell you where to get the guns.>>
DAR
Well, those guns aren't amounting to much:
"In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population." <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... 2">Link</a>.
How many did the US have in 2005 alone? 10,100. That's over 400x greater. Yet we are only 5x the population. Maybe it's the guns?
Bigd: And comparing gun murders is misleading.>>
DAR
It can be, that's why I am careful not to make that mistake. Any way you slice it, murders, accidents, suicides, non-fatal incidents... if guns are involved, more people die, more people get hurt. And the US is a prime and distinguished example.
Bigd: How many murders by gun occur in Israel?>>
DAR
In '93, 0.72 per 100k.
The US was 3.72 per 100k, in '99.
Canada was 0.76, in 1992.
Do remember the US is about 52 times larger than tiny Israel, which is a bit of a special situation.
If you compare the US to it's comparable peer countries, the result is clear. The US pays a terrible and disproportionate price in death and destruction due to it's lack of gun control. The example below being perhaps the most revealing.
D.
-------------------
“…the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries COMBINED. American children are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm accident than children in these other countries.”
--Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rates of homicide, suicide, and firearm-related deaths among children in 26 industrialized countries. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997; 46 :101 –105
<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtm ... m">LINK</a>.
***
[Ridicule about Obama winning Peace Prize]
DAR
Wow. So nice to see such an honor bestowed upon an American again. You would think people who are proud of American would be thankful.
Interesting bits and a few reasons:
"Obama's election and foreign policy moves caused a dramatic improvement in the image of the U.S. around the world. A 25-nation poll of 27,000 people released in July by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found double-digit boosts to the percentage of people viewing the U.S. favorably in countries around the world. That indicator had plunged across the world under President George W. Bush.
The Nobel committee praised Obama's creation of "a new climate in international politics" and said he had returned multilateral diplomacy and institutions like the U.N. to the center of the world stage.
"You have to remember that the world has been in a pretty dangerous phase," Jagland said. "And anybody who can contribute to getting the world out of this situation deserves a Nobel Peace Prize."
Obama is the third sitting U.S. president to win the award: President Theodore Roosevelt won in 1906 and President Woodrow Wilson was awarded the prize in 1919.
Former Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, said Obama has already provided outstanding leadership in the effort to prevent nuclear proliferation.
"In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself," ElBaradei said. "He has shown an unshakeable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts. He has reached out across divides and made clear that he sees the world as one human family, regardless of religion, race or ethnicity."
In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_nobel_peace">Link</a>
Congratulations to President Obama and America for this honor.
The only people not happy it seems? Some Muslims, some republicans.
Bit:
"Upon being called by ABC News at 5:45 ET this morning, a White House aide said, "This better be good."
When told by ABC News that the president had won the Nobel Peace Prize, the aide replied: "Oh, that is good."
D.
---------------
"[A] wonderful recognition of Obama's effort to reach out to the Arab world after years of hostility." --Archbishop Desmond Tutu
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - Oct)
OCTOBER 9, 2009
****
Bigd: "other nominees were more worthy.">>
DAR
I noticed you didn't name any.
Bigd: "We are proud when we earn something..."
DAR
Right. Under Bush the US earned worldwide disdain, with Obama it has been the exact opposite.
Oh, and your picture [Obama with cigarette] is faked.
D.
------------------
Taliban condemn the award:
"We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan," Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told AFP.
"We condemn the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for Obama," he said by telephone from an undisclosed location."
***
Bigd: "What is the murder rate by handgun in Texas compared to the other states and compared to countries with strict gun
control?>>
DAR
Found this which is for "gun ownership" not just handguns:
"Texas, which has a gun ownership level of 39.5% should have a homicide rate of 60.4851%. The actual homicide rate is 64.9727%, making Texas slightly more violent than the predicted value."
As to a comparison with peer countries with strict gun control? No comparison. As already shown, they have VASTLY better numbers. Not even close. No comparable peer country tolerates the bloodbath we do.
Note: "The National Academy of Science has found no evidence that shows right-to-carry laws have an impact, either way, on rates of violent crime."
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/1.html
Bigd: Is Israel 0.72? And everyone carries weapons…>>
DAR
Try to turn the absurd claims just down a notch perhaps?
Bigd: Canada and other countries should be at zero but they are not.>>
DAR
Canada has lots of guns, minus the hand guns, the ownership rate is even similar (remember, lot's of Canada is located "outdoors"). My dad in B.C. shoots a moose for his freezer almost every year.
Bigd: The US numbers involve the illegals,>>
DAR
If I was interested enough I would look up the stats to show that this is just xenophobia on your part. Boring.
Bigd: Put people who commit gun crimes in jail and KEEP them there.>>
DAR
We've tried that, having the highest incarceration rates in the world, with extremely poor results. Maybe it's the guns?
Bigd: We have a violent society.>>
DAR
Lot's of dumb dumbs too. Put a bunch of guns in the mix, see what happens. Oops! "Didn't know it was loaded."
Bigd: Those people are NOT buying those guns through loopholes and in other
states.>>
DAR
What a load.
Bigd: Instead of trying to... take away our rights>>
DAR
When did I do that? Read carefully. Just because I tell the truth about guns doesn't mean I advocate that they should be taken away.
The US gets what it wants and "reaps what it sews" in this regard. It will grow up someday. It'll have to. It'll even go metric.
D.
----------------
The number of kids killed by guns (1995):
0 children in Japan
19 in Great Britain
57 in Germany
109 in France
153 in Canada
and
5,285 in the United States
<a href="http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm">Link</a>.
Maybe it's the guns?
***
Bigd: "This is the one page [healthcare] “Small Bill” proposed by Republicans.">>
DAR
I only needed to read #1. Tax cuts again... mostly for the rich. One trick ponies these guys... they know one song, and they even stay on the same bloody verse.
If they gave a flip about healthcare and the millions suffering, <a href="http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/31888">and they obviously do not</a>, why didn't they do anything about it during their many recent years of power?
Republicans have for some reason chosen to make themselves irrelevant, again.
Bigd: "if you like the... Post Office then you will love Obamacare.>>
DAR
You should learn some new slogans. I have refuted that one several times. Americans love their poste:
"Independently measured customer satisfaction scores show that 94% of residential customers rated their experience with the Postal Service as excellent, very good, or good."
http://www.usps.com/history/anrpt05/
Bigd: "Imagine what it will be like when they can get free health care."
DAR
Oh my gosh, it would be like the "free" roads, free fire protection, free police, free schools, free parks, free libraries...
I just can't imagine what that would be like! Hell on earth indeed! LOL.
D.
--------------
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/0 ... .html">Bob Dole: Health Care Will Pass, GOP Should Be Open To Reform</a>
***
BLK: "And the pic aint a fake.">>
DAR
And like a four foot 2x6 swinging through the air, reality smacks Blake upside the head once again:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/phot ... ma_smoking
Time spent to prove this? About 5 seconds.
How? Put: obama smoking fake, in google.
I didn't have to check because I knew it was a fake just by looking at it.
BLK: "we have the world’s contempt.">>
DAR
Had. See below.
D.
------------------
"Graphs comparing the approval ratings of presidents George W. Bush in 2008 and Barack Obama in 2009 evoke the trajectory of a pogo stick:
BAM! 12 percent for Bush in Germany.
BOING! 92 percent for Obama.
BAM! 11 percent for Bush in France.
BOING! 88 percent for Obama.
Overall, the positive reaction to the U.S. president has quadrupled from when the White House changed hands to when the survey was conducted in June."
<a href="http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/euro ... e">LINK</a>.
What a conservative nightmare eh?
***
Bigd: John Lott’s book, More Guns, Less Crime...>>
DAR
Sorry, the National Academy of Science trumps the rightwing hack <a href="http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/">John Lott</a>. His stuff sells books and fools the gullible who want to believe their comfortable myths but it doesn't remotely stand up to peer review. In fact, he is used as a text book example of statistical BS. I have lots of references on this.
Try some "Mary Rosh" and see if it floats.
Bigd: Once again, the US calls anyone under 18 a child...>>
DAR
You've got all the cliche's but you don't read carefully. Having seen
your claim many times, I specifically compared US children (however defined) with Canadians up to age 24.
And the CDC study showing "firearm deaths [are] almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries COMBINED?" Notice, children are *specifically* defined as "under 15." That means 14 and less. Try again.
Bigd: You keep spouting false numbers.>>
DAR
Just try and show they're false. You can't do it.
Bigd: The truth is there, when people carry guns there is LESS violence.>>
DAR
If that were true, the US would have very little violence indeed. But the uncomfortable truth is the exact opposite of that. I have provided multiple lines of evidence from well established sources showing this. And haven't even scratched the surface. You have responded to none of it.
Anyone else notice that I respond to your points and answer your questions
directly while you ignore and sidestep my points?
D.
-------------------
"WASHINGTON, April 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- States in the South and West with weak gun laws and high rates of gun ownership lead the nation in overall firearm death rates...
The new VPC analysis uses 2005 data (the most recent available) from the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. The analysis reveals that the five states with the highest per capita gun death rates were Louisiana, Alaska, Montana, Tennessee, and Alabama. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.32 per 100,000.
By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related death."
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRel ... Reuters</a>.
***
[From an exchange on Facebook with Ms. Masterson, yes, that one]
DAR
Hello Laurie Lee, I'll respond to some of your questions directly.
LL: "why is it that when someone ask a question about Obama it is answered with somethng about Bush?">>
DAR
Because it is normal to compare the polices and results of presidents. It provides context. For instance, all of the normal economic indicators that we judge presidents by went up, improved, under Clinton. Almost every one of them went sharply down, got worse, under GW Bush.
LL: And what other leaders and countries approve of [Obama] or his policies?>>
DAR
Here the numbers are even more stunning.
"Graphs comparing the approval ratings of presidents George W. Bush in 2008 and Barack Obama in 2009 evoke the trajectory of a pogo stick:
BAM! 12 percent for Bush in Germany.
BOING! 92 percent for Obama.
BAM! 11 percent for Bush in France.
BOING! 88 percent for Obama."
<a href="http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/euro ... e">LINK</a>
It's safe to say all of our peer countries strongly approve of Obama and strongly disapproved of Bush. Sort of like here at home.
D.
***
LL: "What policies of his do you agree with and why?">>
DAR
With regard to the Nobel Prize what matters is, what the committee thought of his policies and how his ability to accomplish peaceful ends for the world compared with the 205 other nominations they considered. They decided he was the most worthy and had the best potential to effect change for peace (considering our recent years or warmongering). So he won. In fact: "the decision was "unanimous" and came with ease."
It's important to consider that many Nobel Peace prize winners went on to succeed with their better known accomplishments AFTER they were given the prize. So winning the award is also an attempt to give someone who has great potential to be influential in accomplishing peaceful goals even more power and influence in this regard.
LL: "what do you know specifically that President Obama has done?">>
DAR
Well, he has kept us safe from terrorist attack longer than Bush did hasn't he? That's a good start.
He has accomplished a great deal even in a short time. His reaching out to Muslims as human beings we can talk with was a stunner. Another obvious example would be canceling the provocative and unnecessary and expensive missile shield (that doesn't work).
ElBaradei, the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who knows a
little more about the proliferation of nuclear weapons than you or and I says:
"I could not think of anybody who is more deserving," said ElBaradei.
The disdain for Bush's failures in this regard where also no doubt part of this:
"the Nobel Committee pushes "multilateralism around the world [and] very much disliked the prior U.S. president [George W. Bush]. ... This is in part a reflection of that as well."
D.
***
Now back to regularly scheduled Bigdog roast...
***
BigdL "The CBO affirmed the savings on tort reform yesterday.">>
DAR
Yes it did.
<a href="http://washingtonindependent.com/63471/ ... y-0-2">CBO: Tort Reform Would Cut Health Spending by 0.5%</a>
As I said all along. A fart in a hurricane.
D.
***
Bigd: "I have already shown you that the
tax cuts are not for the rich.">>
DAR
You said that but no one believes it. You also said that the bottom half pay no taxes, so by definition, tax cuts are for the rich and exclude the poor.
And this just in, <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/will ... osity">Red states in worst healthcare shape, public option would shovel even more money from blue states to mooching, welfare red states</a>.
Bigd: "The tax cuts have been better for the middle class.">>
DAR
Without defining "middle class" this means nothing. But we do know, as has been shown over and over, the very rich received vastly more cuts, in raw dollars.
Bigd: "you claim to have read the first paragraph but you did not.">>
DAR
You're right. I said #1 actually but I only read the bolded part. The first sentence. Once I saw that they wanted to fiddle with taxes I got bored and stopped.
If anything is clear at this point, to the people who have studied this issue (as I have) it is that fiddling with tax cuts is NOT going to solve America's Health care problems. Not even close. Not even close to close. It's laughable.
Bigd: "Who cares what Bob Dole said? He sits on the couch with the global warming nuts.">>
DAR
And he was your main dude only 13 years ago. How soon we forget. And now, in his wisdom, he has concern about the earth and the future for his grand kids? Not such a bad thing.
Hey! I bought a Prius day before yesterday. I think I will go and play with it now. I am going to save 2,000 gallons of gas (and about $6,000) in the next five years. If gas goes up a bit, it may even pay for itself in five years. In my first 30 miles I have gotten 52.9 mpg (rather than the 25 I was getting). Happy days.
D.
***
BLK: "one of you liberal [insult] REMOVED the cigarette... [in the pic]>>
DAR
Actions speak louder than words and above we see once again, conservative "personal responsibility" in action.
D.
------------------
Friday Jun 19th, 2009 at 06:47, on this forum:
“Adam, when I am wrong, I will admit it,...” --Blake
***
[Don't care what Europe thinks of America]
DAR
America's accomplishments, especially during WWII, earned a great deal of prestige and goodwill around the world.
That took a great hit during Vietnam and more recently the pinnacle of conservative achievement in the US, the disastrous Bush years. It's good to see some of that goodwill come back the other way.
You can say you don't care what the world thinks about your country, but I don't believe you.
D.
***
[Dar quote] By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far
lower rates of firearm-related death.”>>
DAR
This is true. Be careful not to confuse "violence" with "death." To very different stats.
Bigd: Now DC is not a state but it has the lowest reported gun ownership in the US>>
DAR
Two points:
1) "Reported" is meaningless, especially in a city where you are not supposed to have a gun.
2) As my friend Farrell once put it: "Banning guns in a city or county or even a state is always ineffective, because someone who wants a gun can go out of the city or county or state to get one. As long as there is no nationwide ban in this country, you cannot prove anything with references to cities where guns are banned." --Farrell
Bigd: "there are those who make the argument that it matters little whether there are guns or not>>
DAR
These people we call fools. Your DC example (a city with a very high daily turn over
of population) doesn't show a lack of guns but rather a lack of reporting guns.
Bigd: an article that appeared in the American Rifleman in 1990.>>
DAR
Statistics are complicated. The National Academy of Sciences trumps your 19 year old article in a gun magazine.
Bigd: I am willing to bet that most murders with a gun in Texas are caused by illegals and those who are not allowed to own a gun>>
DAR
Then it's only a matter of determining how much you want to lose. You are just regurgitating anti-immigrant BS.
Cite: "While immigrants (legal and illegal) account for 35 percent of California adults, they represent just 17 percent of the state's prisoners. Men born in the United States are incarcerated in California prisons at more than 2½ times the rate of foreign-born men.
Within the age group most often involved in crime (ages 18 to 40), US natives - astonishingly - are 10 times more
likely to be in prison or jail than immigrants (4.2 percent of the former are in correctional institutions, and just 0.42 percent of the latter). Even when the focus is narrowed to inmates who were born in Mexico and are not citizens - the demographic group most likely to include illegal immigrants - the rate of incarceration is only one-eighth that of men born in the United States."
DAR
If anything, immigrants lower crime:
"They found that the cities with greater numbers of recently arrived immigrants have lower crime rates, while cities with fewer immigrants experience higher levels of crime."
<a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/edito ... e/">Boston Globe</a>
Note: "The misperception that immigrants, especially illegal
immigrants, are responsible for higher crime rates is deeply rooted in American public opinion and is sustained by media anecdotes and popular myth," said Ruben G. Rumbaut, a sociology professor at the University of California-Irvine. "This perception is not supported empirically. In fact, it is refuted by the preponderance of scientific evidence."
http://www.azstarnet.com/news/171109
Bigd: [Washington Times quote] The [CDC] released a study... no evidence to prove gun-control laws are effective in preventing violence.>>
DAR
From the Moonie Times, but I don't completely disagree. This speaks to the fact that if you don't have nationwide enforcement, these so called "gun-control laws" are not effective in doing anything. They are, a joke. When any felon can pull their pickup truck up to a gun show and buy anything, cash and carry, no background checks, no record, no receipt, you have no gun control.
That's what we have.
And how's that working out?
D.
-----------------
Handgun murders (1992) (22)
Handgun 1992 Handgun Murder
Country Murders Population Rate (per 100k)
----------------------------------------------
United States 13,429 254,521,000 5.28
Switzerland 97 6,828,023 1.42
Canada 128 27,351,509 0.47
Sweden 36 8,602,157 0.42
Australia 13 17,576,354 0.07
United Kingdom 33 57,797,514 0.06
Japan 60 124,460,481 0.05
Compare:
Total population of the other countries: 242 million (10m less than the US)
Total handgun murders: 367 v. 13,429.
That's 36 times the US number, and in a comparison with a similar population.
Maybe it has something to do with the guns?
***
BLK: [blah blah... amnesty bad... liberal... A$$hole]
DAR
What's the point of going to the effort of banning certain words, which gives a pretense, a false veneer of civility and standards, if you are just going to blatantly subvert your own established process with symbols? Why not just be honest rather than engage in such hypocrisy?
Someday if you find you have good arguments/reasons for your beliefs, you may discover that it isn't necessary to use such language anyway.
Reagan was right to do this in '86. Papa Bush won another four years in 1988 so as usual, your excuse fails anyway. Republicans don't give a flip about immigration (or abortion) but for years they have been good at leading silly bunnies along by the nose.
D.
---------------
"Xenophobic Arizona Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has raised a lot of eyebrows. Besides his very public hatred of Hispanics, he's also established ties with a Neo-Nazi group in his home state. Arpaio's obliteration of civil rights has finally caught up with him and the Obama Administration is finally pushing back"
<a href="http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/ ... a">LINK</a>.
***
Bigd: "the plan we are discussing... is a tax credit>>
DAR
That's nice. This just funnels much needed government revenue to the pockets of the private insurance greed machine
so the band can keep marching on while playing the same tune. As a solution for the actual problems it's completely unworkable, hopeless, laughable, garbage.
If there is anything to this blatant government subsidy to private insurance, why didn't the republican do anything about this when they had all power and were ramming their tax cuts for the rich through? (which they did twice, using the 51 vote reconciliation in the Senate)
D.
***
Bigd: "don’t pretend you are willing to change your mind about anything.">>
DAR
I will change my mind about anything. All I care about (with regard to claims) is that my beliefs are as close in line with reality/truth as possible. I'll believe anything as long as it's true. No exceptions. If your beliefs are better, more accurate, true, I'll discard mine and switch to yours so fast it will make your head spin. And nothing would make me happier because I would have
learned something new.
Guns make America safer? Global warming a hoax? Don't care. If these are true, I want to believe them and will believe them. Let's see your arguments. If they're good, I accept them.
It wasn't always this way, I learned this (how to examine things skeptically) about age 27. Before that I often believed things because I wanted to believe in them, just like most people.
As the verse says at the top of our website (because I put it there):
"Test all things; hold fast what is good."
1 Thess. 5:21
The implication being, discard the rubbish. This is how science works and why it is so powerful at discovering reality. (It's also why religion is so notoriously bad about discovering reality, doesn't change/improve to accommodate itself to new information).
It's very difficult for humans to change their beliefs and to even be open to changing them. Most people don't bother. It's much easier not
to. They find it much easier to go to absurd ends to support the beliefs they have emotionally attached themselves to, truth be damned. This is probably the most astonishing thing I have ever learned. Most people aren't the slightest bit interested in actually believing things because they are true. Given the choice between a comforting falsehood that fits with their tinker-toy collage of beliefs and accepting an uncomfortable truth that causes trouble with this interconnected mess, they choose, the emotional comfort.
I try to avoid that.
There are well understood evolutionary reasons for this. For one, people get confused and think they ARE their beliefs (just as some people think they are their cars or their clothes, this is why they spend so much time, money and effort on both). If you attack/confront someone's beliefs, especially the irrational cultic beliefs that seem to gather around religion and politics, people take this as an
attack/confrontation on THEM. They think they ARE their beliefs. Without their beliefs, they don't know who they are. It's rather pitiful, but there it is.
Anyway, yes, I will change my belief about anything. I've done it many times. All you have to have is good reasons.
D.
-----------------
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking; where it is absent, discussion is apt to become worse than useless."
--Leo Tolstoy, "On Life and Essays on Religion"
***
Bigd [before]:The CBO affirmed the savings on tort reform yesterday.>>
Bigd [now]: "it will be no where near what the CBO graded.">>
DAR
You may think about why you would quote the CBO as a reputable source (which it
is) and then moments later say their numbers can't be trusted.
***
Bigd: This does not benefit the insurance companies>>
DAR
Of course it does. You said this tax credit (gov. subsidy) is "so people without insurance can buy it." That is a direct funnel of government money so more people can buy into the bloated, wasteful, unnecessary, private insurance greed machine. Dumb.
Bigd: you think it is bad to “level the playing field” so people can buy insurance.>>
DAR
Never said that. I will say that fiddling with taxes and subsidizing insurance companies does not address the problem. In fact, worse than that, it perpetuates it.
D.
***
[you misquoted Blake]
DAR
I edit quotes to make them shorter, as per YOUR request.
As anyone can see by moving their eyes only three lines up, Blake said:
"Have you ever considered that in the real world, one of you nut jobs digitally REMOVED the
cigarette from hiz Wholiness’ lips?"
Which is of course, absurd.
Blake got busted and rather than admit he was wrong, like the intellectual coward that he is, he pulled something from his bottom. You want to defend that behavior and make stuff up about me being dishonest? Knock yourself out. Readers will reach their own conclusions.
D.
***
BLK: "Crooks and Liars?">>
DAR
Great site by the way. Award winning, good stuff. You'll learn lots.
"Crooks and Liars received the "Best Video Blog" blog award at the Weblog Awards in 2006 [1], and a "Best Weblog About Politics" at the 2008 Weblog Awards.[2]
Time Magazine listed Crooks and Liars as one of the 25 Best Blogs of 2009."
BLK: "It is the unions who want illegals,">>
DAR
It is the unions who want illegals? Really?
***
Bigd: DC has the highest gun murder rate in the country.>>
DAR
That may be true (DC actually comes in 5th for "murder rate"), what do you propose? More guns? I think we've given that a good "shot."
Bigd: you make the mistake of assuming a nationwide ban would keep them from going elsewhere to buy guns.>>
DAR
Where they gonna go? Canada? Columbia?
Bigd: There is a nationwide ban on cocaine and heroin.>>
DAR
Our peer countries have similar laws against use of these drugs and get similar results. And they have the same results with pools, ladders, automobiles and all the usual red herrings gun nuts like to bring up to distract. The difference is these peer countries have much stronger gun control laws and get radically better results in less, death,
destruction, murder, suicide, accidents and maiming BY GUNS. It's not even close. This is not difficult, it's not rocket science. It's the guns. Most of your beliefs about guns are emotional and irrational when they aren't completely false.
If you want less three wheeler ATV's you ban them or regulate them. Seen any lately? No. A careful review of our peer countries shows that gun control clearly works, and works very well, but it does not work on a city by city or state by state basis. And it does not work at all when all of the laws are completely, regularly and easily subverted by gun shows, private sales, internet sales, etc.
D.
ps. Here's a good overview <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/200 ... ndards">of Lott</a> btw.
--------------
Question: How serious an
issue is gun violence in the United States?
Answer: In 2004, there were 29,569 gun-related deaths in the United States, including almost 12,000 homicides, more than 16,750 suicides and approximately 650 unintentional deaths. This adds up to about 80 gun-related deaths in the United States every day—or almost 2.5 times of the number of persons killed at Virginia Tech each day.
There were also approximately 70,000 non-fatal gun shot injuries in 2005 serious enough to require at least an emergency room visit. In addition, there were 477,040 victims of gun-related crimes in the United States in 2005.
Question: How does the United States compare to other countries in terms of gun violence?
Answer: The violent crime rate in the United States is about average when compared with most other high-income, developed countries. But our murder rate is much higher than most. The difference is that the violent crime we have in the United
States is more likely to be fatal than in most other high-income countries—a difference primarily attributable to the greater use of firearms in violent crime."
<a href="http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/a ... ml">John's Hopkins</a>.
***
BLK: "you edited most of the sentence about Nobama’s cigarette comment">>
DAR
Still burning about that eh?
Here is your comment, in it's entirety:
"Have you ever considered that in the real world, one of you nut jobs digitally REMOVED the cigarette from hiz Wholiness’ lips?"
Aside from the fact anyone could look three lines up and see your comment in it's entirety, my editing STILL did not change your context. Notice, you DID NOT say:
"Have you ever considered that maybe..."
Then you would, maybe, if I was quoting something you had said a week ago and people couldn't easily check the context by looking three lines up, have a point.
But you don't have a point because you didn't say that. You said "in the real world" meaning, in reality. You are claiming, in reality,
that someone removed a cigarette from his lips in this photograph. You are claiming that this is the reality, the "real world," and you asked if I considered this reality. That's just how English works. Sorry about that.
If you are done with distracting with absurd claims and false charges of dishonesty, why don't you just be a big boy and admit your mistake. The photo is a well known fake that was exposed immediately. We know who took the original and when and where. Also, for those who can see well, it's pretty obvious that the cigarette is too bright and doesn't cause any indentation in his lips.
D.
--------------------
"In early 2008 the top photo began circulating online, showing Obama with a cigarette in his mouth. It is not real. The original photo (top) was taken by Kwame Ross on Aug. 3, 2004 while then-State Sen. Obama met with constituents at the University of Illinois while campaigning to become a U.S. Senator."
http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/editordetail.php?id=220
***
INON: "you take offense at they way things are said">>
DAR
Not at all. Never do, never did. You don't understand. I like to point out hypocrisy. And it's hypocritical for a person to have a word ban policy and then blatantly subvert it by using symbols which accomplish the exact same thing.
On our freethinker forum we language freedom. No words banned thus no need to play games with a false pretense of civility. I understand the desire to ban words. Makes sense. Making a rule and then blatantly breaking your own rule, doesn't make sense.
INON: "Lib-[insult] said Bush couldn’t pronunce(sic) “nuclear,” so he is a dolt. Must know nothing about nuclear is!">>
DAR
Must know nothing about nuclear is? Most know nothing about nuclear
is!
INON: "Well, the Japanese call nuclear explosion, “Dai-baka-hatsu.”>>
DAR
I bet Japanese know how to pronounce this and other words in their native language, unlike your Bush. Thanks for the reminder.
D.
-----------------
"Then you wake up at the high school level and find out that the illiteracy level of our children are appalling."
—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004
***
INON: "The best science says it [climate change] is a hoax.">>
DAR
Actually, all of the science says it's not.
"Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion."
"With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in
2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change." --ibid
So it is not possible for you to be more wrong.
Good job! That's harder to do than people realize.
INON: "you are the sucker that bought the hybrid."
DAR
And I am the sucker who is getting 50 miles to the gallon.
D.
----------------
"The National Academy of Sciences says that this level [40 MPG] is not even technically achievable."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle arguing against suggestions to raise fuel efficiency standards for American automobiles. But Richard A. Meserve, who served as the chairman of the academy's study on fuel efficiency, said that Mr. Quayle had misunderstood a report by the academy that had discussed whether cars that efficient would be attractive to American buyers. (New York Times, 8/29/92)
God you guys are dumb.
***
DAR
I see lots of claims. I don't see any attempt to back any of it up. What's your basis for Medicare having "the highest rejection rate of all insurances?"
Higher cost per patient, if true, is understandable. Old people use a lot more medical care. Put everyone on medicare? Costs go way down. No greed machine to feed. No CEO getting a billion dollar parachute. No 460,000 employees working to increase profits by denying people coverage.
Tax credits are "part" of the Dem plan, but they are hardly the main, #1 plank, as with your little one pager.
If there is no government option and people are forced to continue to feed the greed machine then we will simply come back to this problem in ten years when family premiums are $30,000 per year and half the population has no coverage. That's what we did last time. Kick the can down the road. Soon the problem will be so bad even a republican won't be able to pretend he
can't see it.
Someday America will deal with this ticking time bomb, it's not an option. And some day we will go metric.
D.
-------------
Rising star, representative Grayson on the republicans complaining about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize:
"I think I understand their disappointment. They're not going to be winning the Nobel Peace Prize themselves anytime soon. They probably wish there were a Nobel Prize for fear, a Nobel Prize for hatred, a Nobel prize for racism. You know, then they'd be in the running, but I don't think they're going to be winning a Nobel Peace Prize soon." --Rep. Alan Grayson
<a href="http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/hea ... h">Link</a>.
***
Bigd: They have a right to protest but I have no right to crude jokes?>>
DAR
Crude jokes are great. But again, it's not that it's just a bad joke, or a crude joke, it's that the joke backfires in your face (no pun). It doesn't work. It just reveals the joke is on you.
Saying the teabagging label should be applied to a gay event just reveals your naivete/innocence. It's kind of cute I suppose.
Bigd: "So when Garafalo calls people tea bagging redneck racists it is a joke?>>
DAR
No, that's just a statement of fact. A bit of a wide brush though. Do you ever paint with a wide brush? Or should I say, do you ever NOT paint with a wide brush?
D.
-------------------
"Consider further the variety of overtly racist
rhetoric that has plagued American politics since last year's election season. <a href="http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/200 ... nce">Haley Barbour's "right hand"</a> speaking at a racist conference. <a href="http://carloz.newsvine.com/_news/2009/0 ... nt">Racist emails</a> circulated by Republican staffers. <a href="http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/200 ... epublicans demonstrating in Klan outfits.</a> Republican mayors depicting the White House behind a watermelon patch. And a variety of campaign tactics <a
href="http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/200 ... ign">which included</a> mailings depicting Barack Obama's face surrounded by fried chicken and watermelon, posters and websites attempting to link Obama to bin Laden, the Republican vice-presidential candidate praising a racist writer, and more."
<a href="http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/200 ... n">LINK</a>.
We've been cataloging some of the republican racism against Obama <a href="viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4688&start=0">since May of 2008</a>.
***
BLK: You are also the sucker who bought beta technology,>>
DAR
It was beta in the 90's. First year was 1997.
BLK: and I bet those batteries are going to be expensive,>>
DAR
I talked to the mechanic and he said the batteries in the '97 models are still going strong.
"expected failure rate for life of vehicle (they used 180,000 miles) was less than 1%"
<a href="http://priuschat.com/forums/gen-ii-priu ... l">Link</a>
Used ones, from wrecks, go for $400-$1000. Since I am saving $100 per month, every month, on gas, I think this will be quite workable.
And note:
"Toyota... has only needed to replace 0.003 percent of its hybrid batteries out of warranty on the second generation Prius.
Toyota announced drastic cuts to the cost of replacement batteries for their hybrids... dropped prices from ~$5,500 to $3,000." <a href="http://ecomodder.com/blog/replacement-h ... /">Link</a>.
BLK: plus a tax for disposal,>>
DAR
I hope so. You know how us liberals love taxes. I've read that the batteries are 80% recyclable.
BLK: Toyotas are the most expensive to fix.>>
DAR
Not really. I have an '85 Toyota pickup.
BLK: a lot of money to spend on unproven>>
DAR
I paid $10k. It Blue books for $13-14k. Dealers are hungry.
BLK: only a true sucker buys new.>>
DAR
I completely agree. I've never had a new vehicle.
D.
***
Bigd: All is a completely inclusive modifier>>
DAR
Yes it is. Let me put it this way:
All "scientific bod[ies] of national or international standing [agree with] the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.” --ibid
It may be the case that you and Inonit are right about climate science and that *all* of the scientific organizations are wrong.
I just don't think that reasonable people will think this is very likely to be the case.
D.
***
Bigd: [Tea bagging] "I said it was commonly associated with a gay act.">>
DAR
It isn't.
Bigd: "You, on the other hand, said it has NOTHING to to with being gay.">>
DAR
It doesn't.
Hey, there was a football game the other day, and there were men there, let's call it a teabagger event. That's how stupid your "joke" is.
You guys screwed up and ignorantly and hilariously labeled your own movement something to do with teabagging. It was a very funny mistake. But it's time to pull up your zippers and get over it.
D.
***
DAR
I think the Promise Keepers are planning another convention. I think they are going to allow women this time but if they weren't I wonder if it would be funny to call it a tea-bagging event since after all, in the past, you had to have one to attend.
Bigd said [main article above]: "In DC this weekend, there is a protest going on and the group contains actual tea baggers."
DAR
The reason this doesn't work (and reveals you are taking a swing at gays and missing), is, all large groups with men "contain actual tea baggers."
Most groups are just smarter than to refer to themselves this way!
D.
***
BLK: [statement should read...] "“All scientific bodies of national or international standing agree that there may or may not..."
DAR
Could a statement be more wishy washy? Why would any group make such a worthless statement? You are playing childish word games. Wishing things does not make them true.
As I cited, with reference, "no scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.”
Not one. This is actually an astonishing level of consensus and agreement.
If you would like to try and support your assertion you can do this by citing a "scientific body of national or international standing" that does reject this basic finding.
Godspeed.
D.
***
NOTES:
First, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office yesterday ruled that the Senate health care plan--commonly referred to as the Baucus plan, named for Montana Sen. Max Baucus--with its 10-year estimated price tag of $829 billion does, in fact, meet Obama's "budget-neutral" promise. Here's the CBO report's language and specific figures in terms of costs and revenue offsets: [snip]
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/ ... point.html
****
Bigd: "other nominees were more worthy.">>
DAR
I noticed you didn't name any.
Bigd: "We are proud when we earn something..."
DAR
Right. Under Bush the US earned worldwide disdain, with Obama it has been the exact opposite.
Oh, and your picture [Obama with cigarette] is faked.
D.
------------------
Taliban condemn the award:
"We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan," Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told AFP.
"We condemn the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for Obama," he said by telephone from an undisclosed location."
***
Bigd: "What is the murder rate by handgun in Texas compared to the other states and compared to countries with strict gun
control?>>
DAR
Found this which is for "gun ownership" not just handguns:
"Texas, which has a gun ownership level of 39.5% should have a homicide rate of 60.4851%. The actual homicide rate is 64.9727%, making Texas slightly more violent than the predicted value."
As to a comparison with peer countries with strict gun control? No comparison. As already shown, they have VASTLY better numbers. Not even close. No comparable peer country tolerates the bloodbath we do.
Note: "The National Academy of Science has found no evidence that shows right-to-carry laws have an impact, either way, on rates of violent crime."
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/1.html
Bigd: Is Israel 0.72? And everyone carries weapons…>>
DAR
Try to turn the absurd claims just down a notch perhaps?
Bigd: Canada and other countries should be at zero but they are not.>>
DAR
Canada has lots of guns, minus the hand guns, the ownership rate is even similar (remember, lot's of Canada is located "outdoors"). My dad in B.C. shoots a moose for his freezer almost every year.
Bigd: The US numbers involve the illegals,>>
DAR
If I was interested enough I would look up the stats to show that this is just xenophobia on your part. Boring.
Bigd: Put people who commit gun crimes in jail and KEEP them there.>>
DAR
We've tried that, having the highest incarceration rates in the world, with extremely poor results. Maybe it's the guns?
Bigd: We have a violent society.>>
DAR
Lot's of dumb dumbs too. Put a bunch of guns in the mix, see what happens. Oops! "Didn't know it was loaded."
Bigd: Those people are NOT buying those guns through loopholes and in other
states.>>
DAR
What a load.
Bigd: Instead of trying to... take away our rights>>
DAR
When did I do that? Read carefully. Just because I tell the truth about guns doesn't mean I advocate that they should be taken away.
The US gets what it wants and "reaps what it sews" in this regard. It will grow up someday. It'll have to. It'll even go metric.
D.
----------------
The number of kids killed by guns (1995):
0 children in Japan
19 in Great Britain
57 in Germany
109 in France
153 in Canada
and
5,285 in the United States
<a href="http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm">Link</a>.
Maybe it's the guns?
***
Bigd: "This is the one page [healthcare] “Small Bill” proposed by Republicans.">>
DAR
I only needed to read #1. Tax cuts again... mostly for the rich. One trick ponies these guys... they know one song, and they even stay on the same bloody verse.
If they gave a flip about healthcare and the millions suffering, <a href="http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/31888">and they obviously do not</a>, why didn't they do anything about it during their many recent years of power?
Republicans have for some reason chosen to make themselves irrelevant, again.
Bigd: "if you like the... Post Office then you will love Obamacare.>>
DAR
You should learn some new slogans. I have refuted that one several times. Americans love their poste:
"Independently measured customer satisfaction scores show that 94% of residential customers rated their experience with the Postal Service as excellent, very good, or good."
http://www.usps.com/history/anrpt05/
Bigd: "Imagine what it will be like when they can get free health care."
DAR
Oh my gosh, it would be like the "free" roads, free fire protection, free police, free schools, free parks, free libraries...
I just can't imagine what that would be like! Hell on earth indeed! LOL.
D.
--------------
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/0 ... .html">Bob Dole: Health Care Will Pass, GOP Should Be Open To Reform</a>
***
BLK: "And the pic aint a fake.">>
DAR
And like a four foot 2x6 swinging through the air, reality smacks Blake upside the head once again:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/phot ... ma_smoking
Time spent to prove this? About 5 seconds.
How? Put: obama smoking fake, in google.
I didn't have to check because I knew it was a fake just by looking at it.
BLK: "we have the world’s contempt.">>
DAR
Had. See below.
D.
------------------
"Graphs comparing the approval ratings of presidents George W. Bush in 2008 and Barack Obama in 2009 evoke the trajectory of a pogo stick:
BAM! 12 percent for Bush in Germany.
BOING! 92 percent for Obama.
BAM! 11 percent for Bush in France.
BOING! 88 percent for Obama.
Overall, the positive reaction to the U.S. president has quadrupled from when the White House changed hands to when the survey was conducted in June."
<a href="http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/euro ... e">LINK</a>.
What a conservative nightmare eh?
***
Bigd: John Lott’s book, More Guns, Less Crime...>>
DAR
Sorry, the National Academy of Science trumps the rightwing hack <a href="http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/">John Lott</a>. His stuff sells books and fools the gullible who want to believe their comfortable myths but it doesn't remotely stand up to peer review. In fact, he is used as a text book example of statistical BS. I have lots of references on this.
Try some "Mary Rosh" and see if it floats.
Bigd: Once again, the US calls anyone under 18 a child...>>
DAR
You've got all the cliche's but you don't read carefully. Having seen
your claim many times, I specifically compared US children (however defined) with Canadians up to age 24.
And the CDC study showing "firearm deaths [are] almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries COMBINED?" Notice, children are *specifically* defined as "under 15." That means 14 and less. Try again.
Bigd: You keep spouting false numbers.>>
DAR
Just try and show they're false. You can't do it.
Bigd: The truth is there, when people carry guns there is LESS violence.>>
DAR
If that were true, the US would have very little violence indeed. But the uncomfortable truth is the exact opposite of that. I have provided multiple lines of evidence from well established sources showing this. And haven't even scratched the surface. You have responded to none of it.
Anyone else notice that I respond to your points and answer your questions
directly while you ignore and sidestep my points?
D.
-------------------
"WASHINGTON, April 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- States in the South and West with weak gun laws and high rates of gun ownership lead the nation in overall firearm death rates...
The new VPC analysis uses 2005 data (the most recent available) from the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. The analysis reveals that the five states with the highest per capita gun death rates were Louisiana, Alaska, Montana, Tennessee, and Alabama. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.32 per 100,000.
By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related death."
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRel ... Reuters</a>.
***
[From an exchange on Facebook with Ms. Masterson, yes, that one]
DAR
Hello Laurie Lee, I'll respond to some of your questions directly.
LL: "why is it that when someone ask a question about Obama it is answered with somethng about Bush?">>
DAR
Because it is normal to compare the polices and results of presidents. It provides context. For instance, all of the normal economic indicators that we judge presidents by went up, improved, under Clinton. Almost every one of them went sharply down, got worse, under GW Bush.
LL: And what other leaders and countries approve of [Obama] or his policies?>>
DAR
Here the numbers are even more stunning.
"Graphs comparing the approval ratings of presidents George W. Bush in 2008 and Barack Obama in 2009 evoke the trajectory of a pogo stick:
BAM! 12 percent for Bush in Germany.
BOING! 92 percent for Obama.
BAM! 11 percent for Bush in France.
BOING! 88 percent for Obama."
<a href="http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/euro ... e">LINK</a>
It's safe to say all of our peer countries strongly approve of Obama and strongly disapproved of Bush. Sort of like here at home.
D.
***
LL: "What policies of his do you agree with and why?">>
DAR
With regard to the Nobel Prize what matters is, what the committee thought of his policies and how his ability to accomplish peaceful ends for the world compared with the 205 other nominations they considered. They decided he was the most worthy and had the best potential to effect change for peace (considering our recent years or warmongering). So he won. In fact: "the decision was "unanimous" and came with ease."
It's important to consider that many Nobel Peace prize winners went on to succeed with their better known accomplishments AFTER they were given the prize. So winning the award is also an attempt to give someone who has great potential to be influential in accomplishing peaceful goals even more power and influence in this regard.
LL: "what do you know specifically that President Obama has done?">>
DAR
Well, he has kept us safe from terrorist attack longer than Bush did hasn't he? That's a good start.
He has accomplished a great deal even in a short time. His reaching out to Muslims as human beings we can talk with was a stunner. Another obvious example would be canceling the provocative and unnecessary and expensive missile shield (that doesn't work).
ElBaradei, the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who knows a
little more about the proliferation of nuclear weapons than you or and I says:
"I could not think of anybody who is more deserving," said ElBaradei.
The disdain for Bush's failures in this regard where also no doubt part of this:
"the Nobel Committee pushes "multilateralism around the world [and] very much disliked the prior U.S. president [George W. Bush]. ... This is in part a reflection of that as well."
D.
***
Now back to regularly scheduled Bigdog roast...
***
BigdL "The CBO affirmed the savings on tort reform yesterday.">>
DAR
Yes it did.
<a href="http://washingtonindependent.com/63471/ ... y-0-2">CBO: Tort Reform Would Cut Health Spending by 0.5%</a>
As I said all along. A fart in a hurricane.
D.
***
Bigd: "I have already shown you that the
tax cuts are not for the rich.">>
DAR
You said that but no one believes it. You also said that the bottom half pay no taxes, so by definition, tax cuts are for the rich and exclude the poor.
And this just in, <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/will ... osity">Red states in worst healthcare shape, public option would shovel even more money from blue states to mooching, welfare red states</a>.
Bigd: "The tax cuts have been better for the middle class.">>
DAR
Without defining "middle class" this means nothing. But we do know, as has been shown over and over, the very rich received vastly more cuts, in raw dollars.
Bigd: "you claim to have read the first paragraph but you did not.">>
DAR
You're right. I said #1 actually but I only read the bolded part. The first sentence. Once I saw that they wanted to fiddle with taxes I got bored and stopped.
If anything is clear at this point, to the people who have studied this issue (as I have) it is that fiddling with tax cuts is NOT going to solve America's Health care problems. Not even close. Not even close to close. It's laughable.
Bigd: "Who cares what Bob Dole said? He sits on the couch with the global warming nuts.">>
DAR
And he was your main dude only 13 years ago. How soon we forget. And now, in his wisdom, he has concern about the earth and the future for his grand kids? Not such a bad thing.
Hey! I bought a Prius day before yesterday. I think I will go and play with it now. I am going to save 2,000 gallons of gas (and about $6,000) in the next five years. If gas goes up a bit, it may even pay for itself in five years. In my first 30 miles I have gotten 52.9 mpg (rather than the 25 I was getting). Happy days.
D.
***
BLK: "one of you liberal [insult] REMOVED the cigarette... [in the pic]>>
DAR
Actions speak louder than words and above we see once again, conservative "personal responsibility" in action.
D.
------------------
Friday Jun 19th, 2009 at 06:47, on this forum:
“Adam, when I am wrong, I will admit it,...” --Blake
***
[Don't care what Europe thinks of America]
DAR
America's accomplishments, especially during WWII, earned a great deal of prestige and goodwill around the world.
That took a great hit during Vietnam and more recently the pinnacle of conservative achievement in the US, the disastrous Bush years. It's good to see some of that goodwill come back the other way.
You can say you don't care what the world thinks about your country, but I don't believe you.
D.
***
[Dar quote] By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far
lower rates of firearm-related death.”>>
DAR
This is true. Be careful not to confuse "violence" with "death." To very different stats.
Bigd: Now DC is not a state but it has the lowest reported gun ownership in the US>>
DAR
Two points:
1) "Reported" is meaningless, especially in a city where you are not supposed to have a gun.
2) As my friend Farrell once put it: "Banning guns in a city or county or even a state is always ineffective, because someone who wants a gun can go out of the city or county or state to get one. As long as there is no nationwide ban in this country, you cannot prove anything with references to cities where guns are banned." --Farrell
Bigd: "there are those who make the argument that it matters little whether there are guns or not>>
DAR
These people we call fools. Your DC example (a city with a very high daily turn over
of population) doesn't show a lack of guns but rather a lack of reporting guns.
Bigd: an article that appeared in the American Rifleman in 1990.>>
DAR
Statistics are complicated. The National Academy of Sciences trumps your 19 year old article in a gun magazine.
Bigd: I am willing to bet that most murders with a gun in Texas are caused by illegals and those who are not allowed to own a gun>>
DAR
Then it's only a matter of determining how much you want to lose. You are just regurgitating anti-immigrant BS.
Cite: "While immigrants (legal and illegal) account for 35 percent of California adults, they represent just 17 percent of the state's prisoners. Men born in the United States are incarcerated in California prisons at more than 2½ times the rate of foreign-born men.
Within the age group most often involved in crime (ages 18 to 40), US natives - astonishingly - are 10 times more
likely to be in prison or jail than immigrants (4.2 percent of the former are in correctional institutions, and just 0.42 percent of the latter). Even when the focus is narrowed to inmates who were born in Mexico and are not citizens - the demographic group most likely to include illegal immigrants - the rate of incarceration is only one-eighth that of men born in the United States."
DAR
If anything, immigrants lower crime:
"They found that the cities with greater numbers of recently arrived immigrants have lower crime rates, while cities with fewer immigrants experience higher levels of crime."
<a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/edito ... e/">Boston Globe</a>
Note: "The misperception that immigrants, especially illegal
immigrants, are responsible for higher crime rates is deeply rooted in American public opinion and is sustained by media anecdotes and popular myth," said Ruben G. Rumbaut, a sociology professor at the University of California-Irvine. "This perception is not supported empirically. In fact, it is refuted by the preponderance of scientific evidence."
http://www.azstarnet.com/news/171109
Bigd: [Washington Times quote] The [CDC] released a study... no evidence to prove gun-control laws are effective in preventing violence.>>
DAR
From the Moonie Times, but I don't completely disagree. This speaks to the fact that if you don't have nationwide enforcement, these so called "gun-control laws" are not effective in doing anything. They are, a joke. When any felon can pull their pickup truck up to a gun show and buy anything, cash and carry, no background checks, no record, no receipt, you have no gun control.
That's what we have.
And how's that working out?
D.
-----------------
Handgun murders (1992) (22)
Handgun 1992 Handgun Murder
Country Murders Population Rate (per 100k)
----------------------------------------------
United States 13,429 254,521,000 5.28
Switzerland 97 6,828,023 1.42
Canada 128 27,351,509 0.47
Sweden 36 8,602,157 0.42
Australia 13 17,576,354 0.07
United Kingdom 33 57,797,514 0.06
Japan 60 124,460,481 0.05
Compare:
Total population of the other countries: 242 million (10m less than the US)
Total handgun murders: 367 v. 13,429.
That's 36 times the US number, and in a comparison with a similar population.
Maybe it has something to do with the guns?
***
BLK: [blah blah... amnesty bad... liberal... A$$hole]
DAR
What's the point of going to the effort of banning certain words, which gives a pretense, a false veneer of civility and standards, if you are just going to blatantly subvert your own established process with symbols? Why not just be honest rather than engage in such hypocrisy?
Someday if you find you have good arguments/reasons for your beliefs, you may discover that it isn't necessary to use such language anyway.
Reagan was right to do this in '86. Papa Bush won another four years in 1988 so as usual, your excuse fails anyway. Republicans don't give a flip about immigration (or abortion) but for years they have been good at leading silly bunnies along by the nose.
D.
---------------
"Xenophobic Arizona Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has raised a lot of eyebrows. Besides his very public hatred of Hispanics, he's also established ties with a Neo-Nazi group in his home state. Arpaio's obliteration of civil rights has finally caught up with him and the Obama Administration is finally pushing back"
<a href="http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/ ... a">LINK</a>.
***
Bigd: "the plan we are discussing... is a tax credit>>
DAR
That's nice. This just funnels much needed government revenue to the pockets of the private insurance greed machine
so the band can keep marching on while playing the same tune. As a solution for the actual problems it's completely unworkable, hopeless, laughable, garbage.
If there is anything to this blatant government subsidy to private insurance, why didn't the republican do anything about this when they had all power and were ramming their tax cuts for the rich through? (which they did twice, using the 51 vote reconciliation in the Senate)
D.
***
Bigd: "don’t pretend you are willing to change your mind about anything.">>
DAR
I will change my mind about anything. All I care about (with regard to claims) is that my beliefs are as close in line with reality/truth as possible. I'll believe anything as long as it's true. No exceptions. If your beliefs are better, more accurate, true, I'll discard mine and switch to yours so fast it will make your head spin. And nothing would make me happier because I would have
learned something new.
Guns make America safer? Global warming a hoax? Don't care. If these are true, I want to believe them and will believe them. Let's see your arguments. If they're good, I accept them.
It wasn't always this way, I learned this (how to examine things skeptically) about age 27. Before that I often believed things because I wanted to believe in them, just like most people.
As the verse says at the top of our website (because I put it there):
"Test all things; hold fast what is good."
1 Thess. 5:21
The implication being, discard the rubbish. This is how science works and why it is so powerful at discovering reality. (It's also why religion is so notoriously bad about discovering reality, doesn't change/improve to accommodate itself to new information).
It's very difficult for humans to change their beliefs and to even be open to changing them. Most people don't bother. It's much easier not
to. They find it much easier to go to absurd ends to support the beliefs they have emotionally attached themselves to, truth be damned. This is probably the most astonishing thing I have ever learned. Most people aren't the slightest bit interested in actually believing things because they are true. Given the choice between a comforting falsehood that fits with their tinker-toy collage of beliefs and accepting an uncomfortable truth that causes trouble with this interconnected mess, they choose, the emotional comfort.
I try to avoid that.
There are well understood evolutionary reasons for this. For one, people get confused and think they ARE their beliefs (just as some people think they are their cars or their clothes, this is why they spend so much time, money and effort on both). If you attack/confront someone's beliefs, especially the irrational cultic beliefs that seem to gather around religion and politics, people take this as an
attack/confrontation on THEM. They think they ARE their beliefs. Without their beliefs, they don't know who they are. It's rather pitiful, but there it is.
Anyway, yes, I will change my belief about anything. I've done it many times. All you have to have is good reasons.
D.
-----------------
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking; where it is absent, discussion is apt to become worse than useless."
--Leo Tolstoy, "On Life and Essays on Religion"
***
Bigd [before]:The CBO affirmed the savings on tort reform yesterday.>>
Bigd [now]: "it will be no where near what the CBO graded.">>
DAR
You may think about why you would quote the CBO as a reputable source (which it
is) and then moments later say their numbers can't be trusted.
***
Bigd: This does not benefit the insurance companies>>
DAR
Of course it does. You said this tax credit (gov. subsidy) is "so people without insurance can buy it." That is a direct funnel of government money so more people can buy into the bloated, wasteful, unnecessary, private insurance greed machine. Dumb.
Bigd: you think it is bad to “level the playing field” so people can buy insurance.>>
DAR
Never said that. I will say that fiddling with taxes and subsidizing insurance companies does not address the problem. In fact, worse than that, it perpetuates it.
D.
***
[you misquoted Blake]
DAR
I edit quotes to make them shorter, as per YOUR request.
As anyone can see by moving their eyes only three lines up, Blake said:
"Have you ever considered that in the real world, one of you nut jobs digitally REMOVED the
cigarette from hiz Wholiness’ lips?"
Which is of course, absurd.
Blake got busted and rather than admit he was wrong, like the intellectual coward that he is, he pulled something from his bottom. You want to defend that behavior and make stuff up about me being dishonest? Knock yourself out. Readers will reach their own conclusions.
D.
***
BLK: "Crooks and Liars?">>
DAR
Great site by the way. Award winning, good stuff. You'll learn lots.
"Crooks and Liars received the "Best Video Blog" blog award at the Weblog Awards in 2006 [1], and a "Best Weblog About Politics" at the 2008 Weblog Awards.[2]
Time Magazine listed Crooks and Liars as one of the 25 Best Blogs of 2009."
BLK: "It is the unions who want illegals,">>
DAR
It is the unions who want illegals? Really?
***
Bigd: DC has the highest gun murder rate in the country.>>
DAR
That may be true (DC actually comes in 5th for "murder rate"), what do you propose? More guns? I think we've given that a good "shot."
Bigd: you make the mistake of assuming a nationwide ban would keep them from going elsewhere to buy guns.>>
DAR
Where they gonna go? Canada? Columbia?
Bigd: There is a nationwide ban on cocaine and heroin.>>
DAR
Our peer countries have similar laws against use of these drugs and get similar results. And they have the same results with pools, ladders, automobiles and all the usual red herrings gun nuts like to bring up to distract. The difference is these peer countries have much stronger gun control laws and get radically better results in less, death,
destruction, murder, suicide, accidents and maiming BY GUNS. It's not even close. This is not difficult, it's not rocket science. It's the guns. Most of your beliefs about guns are emotional and irrational when they aren't completely false.
If you want less three wheeler ATV's you ban them or regulate them. Seen any lately? No. A careful review of our peer countries shows that gun control clearly works, and works very well, but it does not work on a city by city or state by state basis. And it does not work at all when all of the laws are completely, regularly and easily subverted by gun shows, private sales, internet sales, etc.
D.
ps. Here's a good overview <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/200 ... ndards">of Lott</a> btw.
--------------
Question: How serious an
issue is gun violence in the United States?
Answer: In 2004, there were 29,569 gun-related deaths in the United States, including almost 12,000 homicides, more than 16,750 suicides and approximately 650 unintentional deaths. This adds up to about 80 gun-related deaths in the United States every day—or almost 2.5 times of the number of persons killed at Virginia Tech each day.
There were also approximately 70,000 non-fatal gun shot injuries in 2005 serious enough to require at least an emergency room visit. In addition, there were 477,040 victims of gun-related crimes in the United States in 2005.
Question: How does the United States compare to other countries in terms of gun violence?
Answer: The violent crime rate in the United States is about average when compared with most other high-income, developed countries. But our murder rate is much higher than most. The difference is that the violent crime we have in the United
States is more likely to be fatal than in most other high-income countries—a difference primarily attributable to the greater use of firearms in violent crime."
<a href="http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/a ... ml">John's Hopkins</a>.
***
BLK: "you edited most of the sentence about Nobama’s cigarette comment">>
DAR
Still burning about that eh?
Here is your comment, in it's entirety:
"Have you ever considered that in the real world, one of you nut jobs digitally REMOVED the cigarette from hiz Wholiness’ lips?"
Aside from the fact anyone could look three lines up and see your comment in it's entirety, my editing STILL did not change your context. Notice, you DID NOT say:
"Have you ever considered that maybe..."
Then you would, maybe, if I was quoting something you had said a week ago and people couldn't easily check the context by looking three lines up, have a point.
But you don't have a point because you didn't say that. You said "in the real world" meaning, in reality. You are claiming, in reality,
that someone removed a cigarette from his lips in this photograph. You are claiming that this is the reality, the "real world," and you asked if I considered this reality. That's just how English works. Sorry about that.
If you are done with distracting with absurd claims and false charges of dishonesty, why don't you just be a big boy and admit your mistake. The photo is a well known fake that was exposed immediately. We know who took the original and when and where. Also, for those who can see well, it's pretty obvious that the cigarette is too bright and doesn't cause any indentation in his lips.
D.
--------------------
"In early 2008 the top photo began circulating online, showing Obama with a cigarette in his mouth. It is not real. The original photo (top) was taken by Kwame Ross on Aug. 3, 2004 while then-State Sen. Obama met with constituents at the University of Illinois while campaigning to become a U.S. Senator."
http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/editordetail.php?id=220
***
INON: "you take offense at they way things are said">>
DAR
Not at all. Never do, never did. You don't understand. I like to point out hypocrisy. And it's hypocritical for a person to have a word ban policy and then blatantly subvert it by using symbols which accomplish the exact same thing.
On our freethinker forum we language freedom. No words banned thus no need to play games with a false pretense of civility. I understand the desire to ban words. Makes sense. Making a rule and then blatantly breaking your own rule, doesn't make sense.
INON: "Lib-[insult] said Bush couldn’t pronunce(sic) “nuclear,” so he is a dolt. Must know nothing about nuclear is!">>
DAR
Must know nothing about nuclear is? Most know nothing about nuclear
is!
INON: "Well, the Japanese call nuclear explosion, “Dai-baka-hatsu.”>>
DAR
I bet Japanese know how to pronounce this and other words in their native language, unlike your Bush. Thanks for the reminder.
D.
-----------------
"Then you wake up at the high school level and find out that the illiteracy level of our children are appalling."
—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004
***
INON: "The best science says it [climate change] is a hoax.">>
DAR
Actually, all of the science says it's not.
"Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion."
"With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in
2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change." --ibid
So it is not possible for you to be more wrong.
Good job! That's harder to do than people realize.
INON: "you are the sucker that bought the hybrid."
DAR
And I am the sucker who is getting 50 miles to the gallon.
D.
----------------
"The National Academy of Sciences says that this level [40 MPG] is not even technically achievable."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle arguing against suggestions to raise fuel efficiency standards for American automobiles. But Richard A. Meserve, who served as the chairman of the academy's study on fuel efficiency, said that Mr. Quayle had misunderstood a report by the academy that had discussed whether cars that efficient would be attractive to American buyers. (New York Times, 8/29/92)
God you guys are dumb.
***
DAR
I see lots of claims. I don't see any attempt to back any of it up. What's your basis for Medicare having "the highest rejection rate of all insurances?"
Higher cost per patient, if true, is understandable. Old people use a lot more medical care. Put everyone on medicare? Costs go way down. No greed machine to feed. No CEO getting a billion dollar parachute. No 460,000 employees working to increase profits by denying people coverage.
Tax credits are "part" of the Dem plan, but they are hardly the main, #1 plank, as with your little one pager.
If there is no government option and people are forced to continue to feed the greed machine then we will simply come back to this problem in ten years when family premiums are $30,000 per year and half the population has no coverage. That's what we did last time. Kick the can down the road. Soon the problem will be so bad even a republican won't be able to pretend he
can't see it.
Someday America will deal with this ticking time bomb, it's not an option. And some day we will go metric.
D.
-------------
Rising star, representative Grayson on the republicans complaining about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize:
"I think I understand their disappointment. They're not going to be winning the Nobel Peace Prize themselves anytime soon. They probably wish there were a Nobel Prize for fear, a Nobel Prize for hatred, a Nobel prize for racism. You know, then they'd be in the running, but I don't think they're going to be winning a Nobel Peace Prize soon." --Rep. Alan Grayson
<a href="http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/hea ... h">Link</a>.
***
Bigd: They have a right to protest but I have no right to crude jokes?>>
DAR
Crude jokes are great. But again, it's not that it's just a bad joke, or a crude joke, it's that the joke backfires in your face (no pun). It doesn't work. It just reveals the joke is on you.
Saying the teabagging label should be applied to a gay event just reveals your naivete/innocence. It's kind of cute I suppose.
Bigd: "So when Garafalo calls people tea bagging redneck racists it is a joke?>>
DAR
No, that's just a statement of fact. A bit of a wide brush though. Do you ever paint with a wide brush? Or should I say, do you ever NOT paint with a wide brush?
D.
-------------------
"Consider further the variety of overtly racist
rhetoric that has plagued American politics since last year's election season. <a href="http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/200 ... nce">Haley Barbour's "right hand"</a> speaking at a racist conference. <a href="http://carloz.newsvine.com/_news/2009/0 ... nt">Racist emails</a> circulated by Republican staffers. <a href="http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/200 ... epublicans demonstrating in Klan outfits.</a> Republican mayors depicting the White House behind a watermelon patch. And a variety of campaign tactics <a
href="http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/200 ... ign">which included</a> mailings depicting Barack Obama's face surrounded by fried chicken and watermelon, posters and websites attempting to link Obama to bin Laden, the Republican vice-presidential candidate praising a racist writer, and more."
<a href="http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/200 ... n">LINK</a>.
We've been cataloging some of the republican racism against Obama <a href="viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4688&start=0">since May of 2008</a>.
***
BLK: You are also the sucker who bought beta technology,>>
DAR
It was beta in the 90's. First year was 1997.
BLK: and I bet those batteries are going to be expensive,>>
DAR
I talked to the mechanic and he said the batteries in the '97 models are still going strong.
"expected failure rate for life of vehicle (they used 180,000 miles) was less than 1%"
<a href="http://priuschat.com/forums/gen-ii-priu ... l">Link</a>
Used ones, from wrecks, go for $400-$1000. Since I am saving $100 per month, every month, on gas, I think this will be quite workable.
And note:
"Toyota... has only needed to replace 0.003 percent of its hybrid batteries out of warranty on the second generation Prius.
Toyota announced drastic cuts to the cost of replacement batteries for their hybrids... dropped prices from ~$5,500 to $3,000." <a href="http://ecomodder.com/blog/replacement-h ... /">Link</a>.
BLK: plus a tax for disposal,>>
DAR
I hope so. You know how us liberals love taxes. I've read that the batteries are 80% recyclable.
BLK: Toyotas are the most expensive to fix.>>
DAR
Not really. I have an '85 Toyota pickup.
BLK: a lot of money to spend on unproven>>
DAR
I paid $10k. It Blue books for $13-14k. Dealers are hungry.
BLK: only a true sucker buys new.>>
DAR
I completely agree. I've never had a new vehicle.
D.
***
Bigd: All is a completely inclusive modifier>>
DAR
Yes it is. Let me put it this way:
All "scientific bod[ies] of national or international standing [agree with] the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.” --ibid
It may be the case that you and Inonit are right about climate science and that *all* of the scientific organizations are wrong.
I just don't think that reasonable people will think this is very likely to be the case.
D.
***
Bigd: [Tea bagging] "I said it was commonly associated with a gay act.">>
DAR
It isn't.
Bigd: "You, on the other hand, said it has NOTHING to to with being gay.">>
DAR
It doesn't.
Hey, there was a football game the other day, and there were men there, let's call it a teabagger event. That's how stupid your "joke" is.
You guys screwed up and ignorantly and hilariously labeled your own movement something to do with teabagging. It was a very funny mistake. But it's time to pull up your zippers and get over it.
D.
***
DAR
I think the Promise Keepers are planning another convention. I think they are going to allow women this time but if they weren't I wonder if it would be funny to call it a tea-bagging event since after all, in the past, you had to have one to attend.
Bigd said [main article above]: "In DC this weekend, there is a protest going on and the group contains actual tea baggers."
DAR
The reason this doesn't work (and reveals you are taking a swing at gays and missing), is, all large groups with men "contain actual tea baggers."
Most groups are just smarter than to refer to themselves this way!
D.
***
BLK: [statement should read...] "“All scientific bodies of national or international standing agree that there may or may not..."
DAR
Could a statement be more wishy washy? Why would any group make such a worthless statement? You are playing childish word games. Wishing things does not make them true.
As I cited, with reference, "no scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.”
Not one. This is actually an astonishing level of consensus and agreement.
If you would like to try and support your assertion you can do this by citing a "scientific body of national or international standing" that does reject this basic finding.
Godspeed.
D.
***
NOTES:
First, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office yesterday ruled that the Senate health care plan--commonly referred to as the Baucus plan, named for Montana Sen. Max Baucus--with its 10-year estimated price tag of $829 billion does, in fact, meet Obama's "budget-neutral" promise. Here's the CBO report's language and specific figures in terms of costs and revenue offsets: [snip]
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/ ... point.html